[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17645-17667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7751]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 761

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757; FRL-8811-7]
RIN 2070-AJ38


Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use 
Authorizations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  EPA is issuing an ANPRM for the use and distribution in 
commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB items

[[Page 17646]]

and certain other areas of the PCB regulations under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and 
distribution in commerce regulations to address: The use, distribution 
in commerce, marking, and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric 
and non-electric equipment; the use of the 50 parts per million (ppm) 
level for excluded PCB products; the use of non-liquid PCBs; the use 
and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces; and the 
marking of PCB articles in use. Also in this document, EPA is also 
reassessing the definitions of ``excluded manufacturing process,'' 
``quantifiable level/level of detection,'' and ``recycled PCBs.'' EPA 
is soliciting comments on these and other areas of the PCB use 
regulations. EPA is not soliciting comments on the PCB disposal 
regulations in this document.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2010.
    See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting dates 
and other deadlines associated with the meetings.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA 
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. The DCO is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0757. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in 
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA 
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is 
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic 
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor 
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must 
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
    See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting 
locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby 
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division 
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
     For technical information contact: John H. Smith, National Program 
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0512; e-mail 
address: smith.johnh@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you you 
manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Utilities (NAICS code 22), e.g., Electric power and light 
companies, natural gas companies.
     Manufacturers (NAICS codes 31-33), e.g., Chemical 
manufacturers, electroindustry manufacturers, end-users of electricity, 
general contractors.
     Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS codes 48-49), e.g., 
Various modes of transportation including air, rail, water, ground, and 
pipeline.
     Real Estate (NAICS code 53), e.g., People who rent, lease, 
or sell commercial property.
     Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 
code 54), e.g., Testing laboratories, environmental consulting.
     Public Administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., Federal, 
State, and local agencies.
     Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS code 
562), e.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g., storage facilities, landfills, 
incinerators), waste treatment and disposal, remediation services, 
material recovery facilities, waste transporters.
     Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811), e.g., Repair and 
maintenance of appliances, machinery, and equipment.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine 
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should 
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. If 
you have any

[[Page 17647]]

questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and 
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be 
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked 
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    With this document, EPA is issuing an ANPRM for the use and 
distribution in commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB items and 
certain other areas of the PCB regulations under TSCA. EPA is 
reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations, 
40 CFR part 761, subparts B and C, to address:
    1. The use, distribution in commerce, marking, and storage for 
reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment.
    2. The use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products.
    3. The use of non-liquid PCBs.
    4. The use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces.
    5. The marking of PCB articles in use.
 EPA is also reassessing the definitions of ``excluded manufacturing 
process,'' ``quantifiable level/level of detection,'' and ``recycled 
PCBs'' in 40 CFR part 761, subpart A.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    The authority for this action comes from TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) 
and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B) and (C)) as well as TSCA 
section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). Section 6(e)(2)(A) of 
TSCA provides that ``no person may manufacture, process, or distribute 
in commerce or use any polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than 
in a totally enclosed manner'' after January 1, 1978. However, TSCA 
section 6(e)(2)(B) provides EPA with the authority to issue regulations 
allowing the use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in a manner other 
than in a totally enclosed manner if the EPA Administrator finds that 
the use and distribution in commerce ``will not present an unreasonable 
risk of injury to health or the environment.'' (EPA's authority to 
allow distribution of PCBs in commerce is limited to those PCB items 
that were ``sold for purposes other than resale'' before April 1978 
(TSCA section 6(e)(3)(C) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(C))). Section 6(e)(2)(C) 
of TSCA defines ``totally enclosed manner'' as ``any manner which will 
ensure that any exposure of human beings or the environment by the 
polychlorinated biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the 
Administrator by rule.'' Section 6(e)(1)(B) of TSCA directs EPA to 
promulgate rules to require PCBs to be marked with clear and adequate 
warnings and instructions (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).

III. Context of this ANPRM

    In the 1970s, commercial manufacture of PCBs in the United States 
ceased. A substantial portion of the PCBs that had already been 
manufactured were still in use in many areas of the country; in 1976 
EPA estimated that of 1.4 billion pounds (lbs.) of PCBs produced in the 
United States, 750 million lbs. remained in service in the country. 
Approximately 75% of the PCBs produced were for use as liquids in 
electrical or industrial equipment (Ref. 1). For some specific types of 
equipment, such as electrical capacitors, virtually all of the large 
number of units manufactured and in use contained PCBs, but for other 
types of equipment, such as electromagnets, only a small number of 
units contained PCBs (Ref. 2).
    TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977. Section 6(e) of TSCA 
generally prohibited the manufacture, processing, distribution in 
commerce, and use of PCBs and charged EPA with issuing regulations for 
the marking and disposal of PCBs. EPA published the first regulations 
addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 1979 (Ref. 
3). Over the 30 years since then, many changes have taken place in the 
industry sectors that use such equipment, and EPA believes that the 
balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining 
equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending 
the regulations.

A. Regulatory History

    On December 30, 1977, EPA published a notice in the Federal 
Register stating that implementation of the January 1, 1978 ban imposed 
by TSCA was being postponed until 30 days after the promulgation of new 
regulations (Ref. 4). On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated these 
regulations (Ref. 3). The regulations found that PCB liquid-filled 
capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad 
transformers) met the statutory definition of ``totally enclosed,'' and 
were exempt from the ban in TSCA section 6(e)(2)(A) on manufacture, 
processing, distribution in commerce, or use. This EPA finding meant 
that it was not necessary to specifically authorize the use of these 
types of PCB-containing equipment. In this same regulation, EPA also 
authorized, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), the use of 
other liquid-filled equipment that was not totally enclosed (railroad 
transformers, heat transfer systems, and hydraulic systems), based on a 
finding that the use would pose no unreasonable risk of injury to 
health or the environment, subject to conditions. One of the conditions 
EPA imposed on the authorization of most non-totally enclosed uses was 
a time limit on the use of PCBs at or above the established 50 ppm PCB 
regulatory cutoff. In the June 7, 1978 (Ref. 5), proposed rule for the 
use authorizations, EPA discussed its authority and rationale for 
establishing use limits:


[[Page 17648]]


    Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to authorize by rule the 
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs 
in a non-totally enclosed manner if these activities will not 
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. 
EPA has determined that certain non-totally enclosed PCB use 
activities will not present an unreasonable risk and proposed to 
authorize these use activities for a period of 5 years after the 
effective date of the final rule. At that time, EPA will examine the 
need for continuing these authorizations.
(Ref. 5, p. 24807)

    EPA has not previously undertaken a reassessment. In making this 
determination to make a reassessment, EPA weighed the effects of PCBs 
on health and the environment, the magnitude of exposure, and the 
reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule. This 
determination is fully discussed in the support/voluntary draft 
environmental impact statement. These proposed time limits were, with 
minor modifications, adopted in the final rule:

    Unlike all other activities that may be subject to an 
authorization under TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), use activities are not 
prohibited under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A). Accordingly, there is no 
automatic limit to the length of use authorizations. In deciding how 
long to authorize each use, EPA believes that it should have the 
opportunity to review each use in a timely way to ensure that there 
is no unreasonable risk associated with its continuation. In 
addition, improved technology or development of new PCB substitutes 
could reduce the need for the authorization. Accordingly EPA 
proposed a five-year limit on most use authorizations; however, no 
such limit was proposed on the use authorization for PCBs in 
electric equipment.
(Ref. 3, p. 31530)

    After the May 31,1979, rule was published, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, Inc., (EDF) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit to review the portion of the 1979 
regulation which designated the use of ``intact and non-leaking'' PCB 
liquid filled capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than 
railroad transformers) as ``totally enclosed.'' On October 30, 1980, 
the court decided that there was insufficient evidence in the record to 
support the Agency's classification of the equipment as ``totally 
enclosed'' (Ref. 6). The court vacated this portion of the rule and 
remanded it to EPA for further action. EPA, EDF, and certain industry 
interveners petitioned the court to stay the mandate while EPA 
conducted rulemaking beginning with an ANPRM, and a utility industry 
group agreed to develop factual information necessary for the 
rulemaking. The court granted the request for a stay and the text of 
the court order was published with EPA's ANPRM on March 10, 1981 (Ref. 
7). On August 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule authorizing the use of 
capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers other than railroad 
transformers, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) (Ref. 8). Time 
limits were imposed on the use of certain types of PCB equipment posing 
an exposure risk to food and feed. Since 1982 there have been 
additional rulemakings (e.g., Refs. 9 and 10), which, with certain 
exceptions, have continued to allow the use of PCB-containing 
equipment, the passive removal of PCB-containing equipment from use 
through attrition, and to require the disposal of PCBs and PCB-
containing equipment in an environmentally sound manner.

B. PCB Use Authorizations

    Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the following liquid-filled PCB 
equipment is authorized for use in a non-totally enclosed manner:
     Electrical transformers.
     Railroad transformers.
     Mining equipment.
     Heat transfer systems.
     Hydraulic systems.
     Electromagnets.
     Switches.
     Voltage regulators.
     Electrical capacitors.
     Circuit breakers.
     Reclosers.
     Liquid-filled cable.
     Rectifiers.
    The servicing, in accordance with specified conditions, of the 
following liquid-filled equipment is also authorized:
     Electrical transformers.
     Railroad transformers.
     Electromagnets.
     Switches.
     Voltage regulators.
     Circuit breakers.
     Reclosers.
     Liquid-filled cable.
     Rectifiers.
    Liquid PCBs are authorized for use where they are a contaminant in 
the following equipment:
     Natural gas pipeline systems.
     Contaminated natural gas pipe and appurtenances.
     Other gas or liquid transmission systems.
    There are also use authorizations for certain non-liquid PCBs 
applications: Carbonless copy paper and porous surfaces contaminated 
with PCBs regulated for disposal by spills of liquid PCBs. There are 
other use authorizations for research and development (40 CFR 
761.30(j)), for scientific instruments (40 CFR 761.30(k)), and for 
decontaminated materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)).
    However, there are no use authorizations for non-liquid PCB-
containing products if they contain PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm, 
including but not limited to adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint, 
rubber or plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, and waxes.
    In 40 CFR 761.35, storage for reuse of authorized PCB articles is 
allowed for up to 5 years, or longer if kept in a storage unit 
complying with TSCA or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) requirements.

C. Distribution in Commerce Regulations

    Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA states, ``The term `totally enclosed 
manner' means any manner which will ensure that any exposure of human 
beings or the environment to a polychlorinated biphenyl will be 
insignificant as determined by the Administrator by rule.'' The 
definition established by rule in 40 CFR 761.3 is, ``Totally enclosed 
manner means any manner that will ensure no exposure of human beings or 
the environment to any concentration of PCBs.''
    EPA has found that the distribution in commerce of intact and non-
leaking equipment is ``totally enclosed.'' See 40 CFR 761.20 (Ref. 3, 
p. 31542). Therefore, no authorization is required for the distribution 
in commerce for use of intact and non-leaking, liquid-filled electrical 
equipment, so long as the equipment was sold for purposes other than 
resale before July 1, 1979. Section 40 CFR 761.20 states:

    In addition, the Administrator hereby finds, for purposes of 
section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, that any exposure of human beings or the 
environment to PCBs, as measured or detected by any scientifically 
acceptable analytical method, may be significant, depending on such 
factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the exposure, the 
likelihood of exposure to humans and the environment, and the effect 
of exposure. For purposes of determining which PCB Items are totally 
enclosed, pursuant to section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since exposure to 
such Items may be significant, the Administrator further finds that 
a totally enclosed manner is a manner which results in no exposure 
to humans or the environment to PCBs. The following activities are 
considered totally enclosed: distribution in commerce of intact, 
nonleaking electrical equipment such as transformers (including 
transformers used in railway locomotives and self-propelled cars), 
capacitors, electromagnets, voltage regulators, switches (including 
sectionalizers and motor starters), circuit breakers, reclosers, and 
cable that contain PCBs at any concentration and processing and 
distribution in commerce of PCB Equipment

[[Page 17649]]

containing an intact, nonleaking PCB Capacitor.

    Since then, EPA has gathered information showing measurable 
emissions of PCBs from some otherwise intact and non-leaking equipment, 
which is not energized (providing or receiving electricity), to the 
ambient air (Ref. 11). ``Weeps'' and ``seeps'' and other leaks are 
visual indicators that the distribution in commerce of some of this 
equipment could result in exposure to humans or the environment to 
PCBs.

D. PCB Health Effects

    The following information about the health effects of PCBs is taken 
directly from the 1996 EPA document entitled ``PCBs: Cancer Dose 
Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures'' (Ref. 
12), which is the source document for the 1997 EPA Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS) file for PCBs. The information is referenced 
in the 1997 EPA IRIS file for PCBs under heading II.A.2 (Human 
Carcinogenicity Data), it states in part:

    Occupational studies show some increases in cancer mortality in 
workers exposed to PCBs. Bertazzi et al. (1987) found significant 
excess cancer mortality at all sites combined and in the 
gastrointestinal tract in workers exposed to PCBs containing 54 and 
42 percent chlorine. Brown (1987) found significant excess mortality 
from cancer of the liver, gall bladder, and biliary tract in 
capacitor manufacturing workers exposed to Aroclors 1254, 1242, and 
1016. Sinks et al. (1992) found significant excess malignant 
melanoma mortality in workers exposed to Aroclors 1242 and 1016. 
Some other studies, however, found no increases in cancer mortality 
attributable to PCB exposure (ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistency 
overall limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions from these 
studies. Incidents in Japan and Taiwan where humans consumed rice 
oil contaminated with PCBs showed some excesses of liver cancer, but 
this has been attributed, at least in part, to heating of the PCBs 
and rice oil, causing formation of chlorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR, 
1993; Safe, 1994).
    A study of rats fed diets containing Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, 
or 1016 found statistically significant, dose-related, increased 
incidences of liver tumors from each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996). 
Earlier studies found high, statistically significant incidences of 
liver tumors in rats ingesting Aroclor 1260 or Clophen A 60 
(Kimbrough et al., 1975; Norback and Weltman, 1985; Schaeffer et 
al., 1984). Partial lifetime studies found precancerous liver 
lesions in rats and mice ingesting PCB mixtures of high or low 
chlorine content.
    Several mixtures and congeners test positive for tumor promotion 
(Silberhorn et al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB congeners is 
correlated with induction of mixed-function oxidases; some congeners 
are phenobarbital-type inducers, some are 3-methylcholanthrene-type 
inducers, and some have mixed inducing properties (McFarland and 
Clarke, 1989). The latter two groups most resemble 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in structure and toxicity.
    Overall, the human studies have been considered to provide 
limited (IARC, 1987) to inadequate (U.S. EPA, 1988a) evidence of 
carcinogenicity. The animal studies, however, have been considered 
to provide sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity (IARC, 1987; U.S. 
EPA, 1988a). Based on these findings, some commercial PCB mixtures 
have been characterized as probably carcinogenic to humans (IARC, 
1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). There has been some controversy about how 
this conclusion applies to PCB mixtures found in the environment.
(Ref. 13)

    In addition to cancer, the 1996 document states, ``Although not 
covered by this report PCBs also have significant ecological and human 
health effects other than cancer, including neurotoxicity, reproductive 
and developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage, 
skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. Toxic effects have been 
observed from acute and chronic exposures to PCB mixtures with varying 
chlorine content'' (Ref. 12).
    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Toxicological Profile for PCBs of November 2000 (2000 ATSDR 
Toxicological Profile) is a more recent review of the toxicity of PCBs. 
The study's summary of health effects (chapter 2.2) states:

    The preponderance of the biomedical data from human and 
laboratory mammal studies provide strong evidence of the toxic 
potential of exposure to PCBs. Information on health effects of PCBs 
is available from studies of people exposed in the workplace, by 
consumption of contaminated rice oil in Japan (the Yusho incident) 
and Taiwan (the Yu-Cheng incident), by consumption of contaminated 
fish, and via general environmental exposures, as well as food 
products of animal origin....[H]ealth effects that have been 
associated with exposure to PCBs in humans and/or animals include 
liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular changes, immunological 
alterations, neurodevelopmental changes, reduced birth weight, 
reproductive toxicity, and cancer. The human studies of the Yusho 
and Yu-Cheng poisoning incidents, contaminated fish consumption, and 
general populations are complicated by the mixture nature of PCB 
exposure and possible interactions between the congeneric components 
and other chemicals.... Therefore, although PCBs may have 
contributed to adverse health effects in these human populations, it 
cannot be determined with certainty which congeners may have caused 
the effects. Animal studies have shown that PCBs induce effects in 
monkeys at lower doses than in other species, and that 
immunological, dermal/ocular, and neurobehavioral changes are 
particularly sensitive indicators of toxicity in monkeys exposed 
either as adults, or during pre- or postnatal periods.
(Ref. 14)

    EPA continues to examine more recent scientific studies on the 
health effects of PCBs and seeks comments and/or information on the 
health effects of PCBs available since the 1997 EPA update of IRIS and 
since the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile. Any proposed or final PCB 
rulemaking which relies on PCB health effects will use information 
subject to EPA's rigorous peer-review process.

E. PCB Environmental Effects

    The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for PCBs summarizes the 
environmental fate, transport, and bioaccumulation of PCBs as follows:

    Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down and 
therefore may remain for very long periods of time. They can easily 
cycle between air, water, and soil. For example, PCBs can enter the 
air by evaporation from both soil and water. In air, PCBs can be 
carried long distances and have been found in snow and sea water in 
areas far away from where they were released into the environment, 
such as in the arctic. As a consequence, PCBs are found all over the 
world. In general, the lighter the type of PCBs, the further they 
may be transported from the source of contamination. PCBs are 
present as solid particles or as a vapor in the atmosphere. They 
will eventually return to land and water by settling as dust or in 
rain and snow. In water, PCBs may be transported by currents, attach 
to bottom sediment or particles in the water, and evaporate into 
air. Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likely to settle into sediments 
while lighter PCBs are more likely to evaporate to air. Sediments 
that contain PCBs can also release the PCBs into the surrounding 
water. PCBs stick strongly to soil and will not usually be carried 
deep into the soil with rainwater. They do not readily break down in 
soil and may stay in the soil for months or years; generally, the 
more chlorine atoms that the PCBs contain, the more slowly they 
break down. Evaporation appears to be an important way by which the 
lighter PCBs leave soil. As a gas, PCBs can accumulate in the leaves 
and above-ground parts of plants and food crops. PCBs are taken up 
into the bodies of small organisms and fish in water. They are also 
taken up by other animals that eat these aquatic animals as food. 
PCBs especially accumulate in fish and marine mammals (such as seals 
and whales) reaching levels that may be many thousands of times 
higher than in water. PCB levels are highest in animals high up in 
the food chain.
(Ref. 14)

    The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile also summarizes 
ecotoxicological effects of PCBs in wildlife (Ref. 14). Information in 
the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile is gathered from experimental 
studies and field

[[Page 17650]]

observations of wildlife, specifically outlining PCB effects in fish, 
bird, and mammal species. The biological responses in wildlife to 
exposures to individual PCB congeners and commercial PCB mixtures vary 
widely in these studies, possibly reflecting not only variability in 
susceptibility among species, but also differences in the mechanism of 
action or selective metabolism of individual congeners. Noteworthy 
impacts on fish, birds, and mammals from this collective data include 
neurological/behavioral, immunological, dermal, and reproductive/
developmental effects. Observed PCB effects related to neurological 
impairment include alterations in central nervous system 
neurotransmitter levels, retarded learning, increased activity, and 
behavioral changes. Immunological effects consist of morphological 
changes in organs related to the immune system, as well as functional 
impairment of humoral- and cell-mediated immune responses. Dermal 
effects in species include adverse effects on fins and tails in fish, 
and abnormal skin, hair, and nail growth in mammals. Lastly, 
reproductive and developmental impacts consist of increased embryo/
fetal loss through effects such as decreased egg hatchability and 
reduced embryo implantation (Ref. 14).
    EPA seeks information on the environmental effects of PCBs that 
became available after the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile (Ref. 14).

IV. Objective of this ANPRM

    The objective of this ANPRM is to announce the Agency's intent to 
reassess the current use authorizations for certain PCB uses to 
determine whether they may now pose an unreasonable risk to human 
health and the environment. This reassessment will be based in part 
upon information and experience acquired in dealing with PCBs over the 
past 3 decades. This ANPRM solicits information from the public on 
several topics to assist EPA in making this reassessment.
    Since the Agency first promulgated its PCB use regulations in 1979, 
EPA's knowledge about the universe of PCB materials has greatly 
increased. The Agency has gained valuable knowledge and experience 
regarding the various sources and uses of PCB materials. Over the past 
30 years, EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate and draw conclusions 
about the effectiveness of the PCB regulations in preventing an 
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from exposure to 
PCBs, as well as their economic impact. This document details EPA's 
observations on why there is reason to make changes in the regulations. 
At the present time, EPA is investigating whether some authorized uses 
of PCBs should be eliminated or phased-out and whether more stringent 
use and servicing conditions would be appropriate. EPA is also re-
examining the geographical and numerical extent of PCBs and PCB items, 
which are subject to the use regulations. The objective of the 
anticipated rulemaking would be to modify any of the regulations that 
apply to PCBs or PCB items, as necessary, if these uses present an 
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment, taking into 
account conditions as they exist and as they are likely to exist in the 
future.
    EPA seeks information that will be useful in making the findings 
required by TSCA section 6. By prohibiting the use of PCBs (except in a 
totally enclosed manner), Congress established a statutory presumption 
that use of PCBs poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment. In order to assess whether a use poses ``no unreasonable 
risks,'' EPA would include an assessment of impacts on the economy, 
electric energy availability, and all other health, environmental, or 
social impacts that could be expected from adoption of alternatives to 
PCBs. There is a list of several questions related to EPA's 
reassessment in Unit XIV. Responses to the questions will provide EPA 
with information needed to assist in its reassessment; other 
information, of course, is also welcome.
    EPA recognizes that there may be differences in the maintenance 
operations, inventories, planning, funding, and budgets for different 
owners of electrical equipment and does not make any assumptions about 
these differences. For example, when compared to very large interstate 
utilities, small municipal and cooperative utilities may have a very 
different approach to address the replacement of leaking equipment. 
Where applicable and appropriate, small municipal and cooperative 
utility responders should provide information about the impacts a 
phaseout of PCB-containing equipment might have on their operations and 
their customers. In particular, EPA encourages small municipal and 
cooperative utilities to take the time to answer the questions in Unit 
XIV. or otherwise provide details about maintenance operations, 
inventories, planning, funding, budgets, or any other information 
related to the cost of addressing the sound environmental management of 
the PCBs in their equipment and measures they have taken or planned to 
take and how these measures will help to safely manage their PCBs. EPA 
also is interested in exploring a range of incentives or programs that 
might facilitate organizations with limited budgets to remove regulated 
PCBs and PCB equipment from their systems and facilities.
    In this document, EPA is also announcing plans to involve 
stakeholders in gathering information to inform EPA's determination of 
the scope of the problem, and EPA's decision on the best ways to 
address risks that may be present from current PCB use authorizations. 
EPA will sponsor a series of public meetings around the country to 
solicit stakeholder comments on this document. Specific information 
regarding the locations, dates, and times of the public meetings are 
included in Unit XIII.

V. EPA's Reasons for Reassessing Existing Use and Distribution 
Provisions

A. Attrition, Aging of Equipment, and Spills

    All of the PCB-containing equipment in current use, which has been 
operating in accordance with the 1979 and subsequent use 
authorizations, is at least 30 years old. Since the ban on 
manufacturing in 1979, no new equipment containing PCBs at 
concentrations greater than or equal to (>=) 50 ppm has been 
manufactured. The total number of PCB transformers in the United States 
is decreasing (Ref. 15) but there are still many PCB transformers in 
use (Ref. 16). Also, all but the most recently manufactured PCB-
containing equipment may be nearing the end of its expected useful 
life, although the useful life of some equipment may have effectively 
been extended by extensive maintenance and re-building. The useful life 
of transformers is typically no more than 30-40 years (Ref. 2).
    Equipment is increasingly vulnerable to leaks the older it becomes. 
For example, between 2002 and 2005, two large, aging electrical 
transformers located on Exxon Mobil's offshore oil and gas platform, 
Hondo, in the Santa Barbara Channel, leaked nearly 400 gallons of PCB-
contaminated fluid. Exxon allowed one of the transformers to leak for 
almost 2 years before repairing it (Ref. 17).
    Several statutes and regulations require reporting of spills of 
hazardous chemicals, including PCBs, to the United States Coast Guard 
National Response Center. EPA contacted the National Response Center 
(Ref. 18) to find out how many PCB spills have been reported 
historically. The National

[[Page 17651]]

Response Center advised EPA that there were a total of 5,578 spills 
associated with PCBs reported from 1990 through August 19, 2009 (Ref. 
19).

B. International Developments

    PCBs are persistent chemicals and it is internationally recognized 
that they pose a risk to health and the environment and need to be 
removed from use. As of October 6, 2009, 166 countries have signed and 
ratified, accepted, approved, or accessed the Stockholm Convention on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention), which among other 
things requires parties to make determined efforts to phaseout certain 
ongoing uses of PCBs by the year 2025. The United States is a signatory 
to the Stockholm Convention but has not yet ratified it (Ref. 20). A 
similar agreement, which has an earlier date relating to the phaseout 
of certain ongoing uses of PCBs, is the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants of the 1979 Convention on Long-Range 
Transboundary Air Pollution, which the United States signed in 1998. As 
with the Stockholm Convention, the United States is a signatory to the 
Aarhus Protocol, but has not yet ratified this agreement (Ref. 21).
     On September 17, 2008, Canada published PCB ban and phaseout 
regulations with bans starting in 2009 for high concentration PCBs 
(Ref. 22). In the Canadian regulations, low-level (< 500 ppm) equipment 
must be removed from use by 2025.

C. Disposal and Cleanup Costs

    EPA anticipates that disposal costs may increase faster than the 
general increase in inflation or cost of living. The population of PCB-
containing equipment is continually decreasing and will never grow or 
rebound due to the ban on manufacturing. This may make the economics of 
retaining a presence in the PCB storage and disposal industry 
potentially less economically attractive for the waste management 
industry. The numerous disposal options and excess disposal capacity 
currently present may not be available in the future, so the costs and 
benefits of continuing to operate aging equipment change in the future. 
The benefits of continued use of PCB-containing equipment are also 
diminished by the increasing risk that aging equipment may fail in a 
manner that releases PCBs to the environment as that equipment reaches 
the end of its useful life. The cost of cleaning up PCB spills may 
exceed the cost of reclassifying or disposing of the intact PCB 
equipment and replacing it with new equipment. The consequences include 
both the direct costs to the equipment owners in damage, equipment 
replacement, service interruption, and lost revenue, and also the 
liability costs of losses to other parties, and compensation and 
potential fines for damages to human health and the environment. EPA 
seeks information and comment on how much the possibility of spills and 
the costs of cleanup affect the decisions of facility owners and 
operators regarding the management, removal, reclassification, or 
replacement of PCB equipment.

D. Insurance Costs

    EPA believes that the cost of liability insurance for owners of PCB 
equipment is likely to increase significantly as the equipment 
continues to age. Insurers have already observed the increased rate of 
failure in equipment which is approaching the end of its useful life 
expectancy (Ref. 23). EPA anticipates that in the future there will be 
continuous increases in the cost of liability insurance to cover all 
equipment because of numbers of releases and contamination from PCB 
equipment which is at least 30 years old. EPA seeks comments on the 
comparison of the cost of future liability insurance with potential 
costs for testing and reclassification of potentially contaminated 
equipment either before it has failed or before there has been a 
determination made to dispose of it. EPA seeks information on 
historical changes in insurance premiums, as PCB-containing equipment 
has aged, and any projections of changes in future rates as a result of 
projected changes in failure rates. EPA also seeks information and 
comment on the extent to which the availability of commercial liability 
insurance or self-insurance by facilities affects facility owners' and 
operators' decisions on how to manage removal or reclassification of 
PCB equipment that may be nearing the end of its useful life.

E. Hazard Assessment of PCBs

    EPA is evaluating the risks from polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 
(PCDDs) and structurally similar chemicals, such as certain PCBs, 
through a process referred to as the Dioxin Reassessment (Ref. 24). 
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans 
(PCDFs), and some PCBs as molecules are structurally similar and have 
been shown to have similar impacts on human health and the environment. 
Also, under certain conditions, the incomplete combustion of PCB-
containing materials produces PCDDs and PCDFs, including some of the 
more toxic congeners. Preliminary indications from the 2003 Draft 
Dioxin Reassessment are that the toxicity of PCBs in general is higher 
than the toxicity values that EPA used in developing previous TSCA PCB 
regulations. Some PCB congeners, sometimes referred to as co-planar 
PCBs or dioxin-like PCBs, are considered to have toxicities similar to 
the most toxic of the PCDDs and PCDFs. EPA has not yet determined how a 
potentially higher toxicity of these PCBs would impact regulatory 
findings used to make risk based decisions. It is possible that EPA 
would find that some risks, which were found to be reasonable using 
older PCB toxicity information, would be unreasonable when using 
potentially higher toxicity information. If this is the case, that 
information my affect any proposed rule that EPA might issue. Any 
proposed or final PCB rulemaking which relies on the contribution of 
dioxin-like PCBs to the overall toxicity of PCBs will be based on the 
finalized Dioxin Reassessment or another EPA peer-reviewed document.

F. Risks of PCB Substitute Materials

    EPA seeks information on the current and likely future substitute 
materials for PCBs that are currently in use or may be put into service 
in the future. EPA is particularly interested in the chemical, 
physical, flammability, and toxicological properties of these 
materials. This information will be essential to a consideration of the 
net differences in risks, were these materials to be substituted for 
PCB equipment currently in use.

G. Updating Information on Releases of PCBs

    EPA does not have a current, thorough national assessment of the 
risks to human health and the environment from PCB releases. 
Information is fragmentary and much of it is geographically limited. 
For instance, the Great Lakes program in which EPA participates has 
published recent estimates of PCB releases, but such estimates are 
statewide, and similar estimates are not available for all States in 
the United States (Ref. 25). The New York Academy of Sciences published 
a study of PCB releases into the waterways feeding into the New York/
New Jersey harbor, breaking down the releases by type of source (Ref. 
26), but similar studies are not available for most waterways in the 
country. Releases to the environment exceeding the reportable quantity 
for PCBs must be reported promptly to the National Response Center. In 
addition to the

[[Page 17652]]

information which is available through the National Response Center, 
EPA seeks any information or data on releases of PCBs, to the 
environment from all kinds of sources, in order to set the releases 
that are the subject of the regulations being considered into a larger 
context. EPA seeks information on the causes of such releases, whether 
the releases reached the environment or were contained, and any 
information on human health or environmental consequences.

H. Risks From the Contamination of Food from PCB-Containing Oils

    Currently the use and storage for reuse of PCB transformers that 
pose an exposure risk to food or feed are prohibited (40 CFR 
761.30(a)(1)(i)). The use and storage for reuse of large high voltage 
capacitors and large low voltage capacitors which pose an exposure risk 
to food or feed are also prohibited (40 CFR 761.30(l)(1)(i)). However, 
both transformers and capacitors containing:
     < 500 ppm PCBs at any weight or volume; or
     < 1.36 kilograms (kg) or 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid at any 
PCB concentration, are not included in these prohibitions.
To lessen the likelihood of such food and feed contamination from these 
sources, EPA is considering broadening the prohibition on the use and 
storage for reuse of PCBs that pose an exposure risk to food and feed, 
including PCB articles containing greater than 0.05 liters (or 
approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. PCB concentrations 
in food are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and PCB 
concentrations in feed are regulated by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA).
    There have been two recent incidents of particular note in Europe 
of very significant contamination of foods and a subsequent recall of 
those foods from the international market. Because of the presence of 
trace amounts of dioxins which are present in most PCBs, these two 
crises also became dioxin crises. These are discussed as follows.
    1. Belgium. The ``Belgian PCB/dioxin crisis'' began in January 
1999, when 50 kg of PCBs contaminated with 1 gram (g) of dioxins were 
accidentally added to a stock of recycled fat used for the production 
of 500 tons of animal feed in Belgium. Although signs of poultry 
poisoning were noticed by February 1999, the extent of the 
contamination was publicly announced only in May 1999, when it appeared 
that more than 2,500 poultry and pig farms could have been involved. 
The highest concentrations of PCBs and dioxins and the highest 
percentage of affected animals were found in poultry.
    The Belgian government estimates that the dioxin crisis cost 
approximately $493 million, with approximately $106 million attributed 
to the loss in the swine sector (in 1999 1 Euro = 1.06 U.S. dollars). 
As other European Union (EU) countries were also affected by export 
bans, the final cost of this incident worldwide will likely be higher 
(Refs. 27, 28, and 29).
    2. Ireland. In December 2008, Irish pork products were removed from 
distribution in commerce. This action was taken by the Food Safety 
Authority of Ireland after finding levels of PCBs and PCDDs in the food 
at concentrations in excess of EU health standards for food. 
Preliminary investigations indicated that a single supplier's feed, 
which had been contaminated from PCB oil in equipment, had been 
distributed to farmers broadly throughout the Republic of Ireland and 
Northern Ireland. All pork products produced in Ireland after September 
1, 2008 were removed from sale in early December 2008. Details of the 
full investigation and the economic impact of the contamination are not 
yet available (Refs. 30, 31, and 32).

I. Risks in Public Buildings From Fluorescent Light Ballasts

    EPA is concerned about the release of high concentrations of PCBs 
from fluorescent light ballasts, particularly in public buildings, such 
as schools. There are anecdotal accounts of spills from this source and 
anecdotal information that PCB fluorescent light ballasts have a 
lifetime of less than 10 years. One of these spills was a significant 
release from fluorescent light ballasts, almost 20 years after the 
publication of the PCB use regulations, at the Standing Rock Indian 
Reservation, ND.
    On February 2, 1998, there were complaints of respiratory problems 
in the administration buildings at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation 
in North Dakota. On February 5, 1998, EPA received an urgent telephone 
call from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota about possible 
PCB contamination from leaking fluorescent light ballasts. The light 
ballasts were located in the elementary school, administration 
building, high school library, and several Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) buildings on the reservation (Refs. 33 and 34). EPA determined 
that many of the fluorescent light ballasts contained PCBs. A sampling 
contractor found PCBs above EPA's PCB spill cleanup levels in light 
fixtures, office equipment and carpeting. BIA hired a contractor to 
decontaminate all areas where it found detectable levels. The 
contractor removed light ballasts and disposed of all ballasts and 
contaminated materials as PCB waste. A high school building where 
contamination was found was closed from February to June, but reopened 
for summer school. The cleanup for the 4 buildings at Standing Rock 
cost BIA more than $500,000 (Ref. 35). The estimated cost for removing 
the non-leaking ballasts from 60 other buildings in the BIA Great 
Plains Region (formerly the Aberdeen Area) was $60,000.

J. Environmental Justice Considerations

    EPA seeks comments on any disproportionate environmental and public 
health impacts that PCB use and distribution in commerce for use may 
have on minority, low-income, tribal, and disadvantaged populations. As 
explained in Unit III.D., it is noted that ATSDR has concluded that 
there may be an adverse impact on the health of persons who eat fish 
contaminated with PCBs. Disadvantaged populations may be more exposed 
to PCBs in contaminated fish than members of the general population. 
Some disadvantaged communities, such as Indian tribes, have subsistence 
lifestyles and rely on fish and mammals that may be caught in PCB 
contaminated waters and environs, as a primary source of nutrition. 
Fish in these waters may have been contaminated by both PCB wastes 
disposed of prior to the use authorizations, as well as releases that 
have occurred from the currently authorized use, distribution in 
commerce and disposal of PCBs (Refs. 14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41).
    In addition, EPA is concerned about the presence of the potential 
risks to urban environmental justice communities from PCB releases at 
railroad substations, electrical substations, and electrical equipment 
storage areas. EPA seeks specific information about the prevalence of 
spills and other releases, including fires, from the use of PCBs in 
environmental justice areas. The focus of the information gathering in 
Unit XIV. is owners and operators of regulated electrical equipment and 
those using PCBs which are authorized in part 40 CFR part 761. However, 
EPA also seeks comments from minority, low-income, tribal, and 
disadvantaged persons and their representatives, who are not direct 
owners or users of PCBs and PCB equipment.
    EPA is also announcing public meetings to discuss the Agency's 
reassessment of the existing PCB use authorizations at several 
locations around the country. The dates,

[[Page 17653]]

locations, and times of the meetings are included in Unit XIII. Any 
additional meetings will be announced on the PCB website (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) at least 30 days prior 
to the first meeting date. Please refer to the PCB website or call 
Christine Zachek at (202) 566-2219 for further details. At these 
meetings, representatives of minority, low-income, tribal, and 
disadvantaged populations will be able to provide oral comments on the 
proposed regulations. These persons will also have the opportunity to 
provide comments to EPA as part of this ANPRM.

VI. Summary of Possible Regulatory Changes for PCB-Containing Equipment 
Under Consideration

    This unit identifies possible changes to the PCB use regulations 
that EPA may consider in a future notice of proposed rulemaking. Any 
future regulatory action to propose these changes will be supported by 
an analysis of costs and benefits, as is required by TSCA. This 
analysis will be supported, in part, by the quality of the data 
submitted as a result of the ANPRM.

A. Options for Initial Phaseout Regulations

    A potential phaseout of any PCB use authorizations might be 
implemented gradually, allowing some use to continue under more 
restrictions before the end of the use authorization. The Agency may 
consider a number of regulatory measures, including, but not limited 
to, the following:
     Require testing of equipment which is stored for reuse or 
removed from service for any reason, and which is assumed to contain 
PCBs at concentrations >= 50 ppm in accordance with Sec. 761.2.
     Require that where such equipment is found to contain PCBs 
at concentrations >= 50 ppm after testing, within 30 days of receiving 
the test results the owner must either reclassify the equipment to < 50 
ppm PCBs or designate it for disposal.
     Eliminate all currently authorized PCB equipment servicing 
except for reclassification.
     Require marking of all equipment which is known or assumed 
(in accordance with Sec. 761.2) to contain PCBs at >= 50 ppm.
     Increase the inspection frequency to a minimum of once 
every month for non-leaking known or assumed >= 500 ppm PCB equipment 
in use.
     Before the final phaseout date(s), broaden the prohibition 
on the use of PCBs in transformers that pose an exposure risk to food 
or feed to include use of PCB-contaminated transformers.
     Broaden the definition of PCB article (this would also 
require changing other definitions) to include all equipment containing 
> 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid 
with >= 50 ppm PCBs, in place of the current definition which regulates 
transformers and capacitors containing >= 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid.
     Require registration of PCB large capacitors containing a 
specified volume of dielectric fluid or having a specified external 
volume or dimensions.
     Eliminate the authorization for storage of PCB equipment 
for reuse.
     Eliminate the use authorization for PCBs in carbonless 
copy paper.
     Eliminate totally enclosed determination for distribution 
in commerce.
     Require reporting/notification to EPA Regional 
Administrators when PCBs are found in any pipeline system, regardless 
of the source of PCBs or the owner of the pipeline.

B. Potential Time Frames for Completing the Removal of PCB Equipment 
From Service

    These measures would phaseout all PCB-electrical equipment uses 
with interim deadlines by equipment concentration and type.
     By 2015, eliminate all use of askarel equipment (>= 
100,000 ppm PCBs), removing from service the equipment in high 
potential exposure areas first. EPA is considering allowing exceptions 
on a case-by-case basis based on hardship and no unreasonable risk. 
Exceptions may be granted based on an application and approved 
exceptions may be published on the PCB website.
     By 2020, eliminate all use of oil-filled PCB equipment (>= 
500 ppm) and the authorization for use of PCBs at >= 50 ppm in pipeline 
systems.
     By 2025, eliminate all use of any PCB contaminated 
equipment (>= 50 ppm), which is still authorized for use.

VII. Information to Be Considered During EPA Reassessment of PCB Use 
Authorizations

    This unit outlines what information EPA believes is important to 
consider when reassessing PCB use authorizations. EPA seeks comment on 
any other information, which may not be included in this unit, but 
which you believe is important for EPA to consider when reassessing PCB 
use authorizations.

A. Liquid-filled Electrical Equipment (Except Railroad Transformers and 
Mining Equipment)

    EPA seeks information on the specific population of any electrical 
equipment that contains greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid 
with PCBs >= 1 ppm and that was manufactured prior to July 31, 1979: 
Transformers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), electromagnets (regulated 
at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), switches (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), voltage 
regulators (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical capacitors 
(regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at 40 CFR 
761.30(m)), reclosers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), liquid-filled 
cable (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), and rectifiers (regulated at 40 
CFR 761.30(r)). Each unit describes specifically what information EPA 
solicits. EPA encourages small business owners and small municipal and 
cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB-containing 
electrical equipment population characteristics and their management 
activities for the equipment.
    1. Population characteristics for transformers, electromagnets, 
switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, 
reclosers, liquid-filled cable, and rectifiers. Information that EPA 
seeks about the use of this equipment appears in questions, which are 
located in Unit XIV.A.-E.
    2. Servicing. Since the first use regulations for liquid-filled 
PCB-containing equipment, EPA has continued to prescribe conditions for 
authorized servicing (maintaining or repairing) this equipment, which 
facilitated extending the life of the equipment, in order to ease the 
hardship an immediate ban would have caused owners. Most life-extending 
use conditions are included in the authorization for servicing:
     Draining, repairing, and putting back into service PCB-
contaminated electrical equipment.
     Topping off and putting back into service PCB-electrical 
equipment.
     Blending the oil drained from multiple pieces of PCB-
containing equipment for servicing.
     Adding blended or other PCB-containing oil into repaired, 
drained equipment.
     Reclassifying.
     Distributing PCB-containing equipment in commerce for 
repair without manifesting.
     Storing company-owned equipment for servicing without any 
conditions to protect against leaks or spills.

[[Page 17654]]

     Servicing equipment which is owned by others, without 
having commercial storage approvals.
    EPA believes that this equipment is nearing the final stages of 
useful life, after a minimum of 30 years of use. When this aging 
equipment fails to function in use or is otherwise removed from 
service, and if there is a need to prolong the life of the equipment, 
EPA believes that the PCBs should be removed from the equipment and 
disposed of in accordance with the regulations in 40 CFR part 761, 
subpart D. The reclassification of out-of-service equipment could be 
considered preventive maintenance and does not require service 
interruption, lost revenue, or liability costs of losses to other 
parties. In the brochure, entitled ``Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down 
of PCB-Containing Equipment,'' published in October 2005 by the 
Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) (Ref. 42), it states 
that:

    Many utility companies across the country have procedures in 
place to ensure that most equipment containing PCBs in 
concentrations > 50 ppm identified after removal from the field is 
either disposed of and not returned to service or retrofilled before 
being returned to service. This practice helps ensure the 
accelerated retirement from service of a large class of potentially 
PCB-containing equipment (e.g., distribution pole-top and padmount 
transformers) that could otherwise lawfully be placed back into 
service. USWAG will continue to actively promote these systematic 
practices of voluntarily identifying and retiring PCB-containing 
equipment from service.

    On April 2, 2001, EPA provided new reclassification procedures 
which include refilling mineral oil filled equipment with liquid 
containing < 2 ppm total PCBs (Ref. 10). A majority of liquid-filled 
equipment which was manufactured to contain mineral oil dielectric 
fluid (mineral oil) and which remains in use can be easily reclassified 
to contain < 50 ppm with a thorough draining and refilling with liquid 
containing < 2 ppm PCBs. If an owner determines that the equipment is 
not worth reclassifying, there currently are numerous disposal options 
and excess disposal capacity for the equipment. EPA seeks information 
on the types and extent of service-extending maintenance and rebuilding 
of PCB-containing transformers, railroad transformers, heat transfer 
systems, hydraulic systems, electromagnets, switches, voltage 
regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers, cable, and rectifiers. EPA's 
questions about servicing are located in Unit XIV.F.
    3. Identifying and managing the use, removal from use, and 
disposal. In the public comments provided during the 1979 rulemaking, 
electrical equipment owners stated that they did not know where PCB-
containing equipment was located (Ref. 3). In the 30 years since, EPA 
believes that it would have been prudent for owners to implement a plan 
during that time to locate any regulated equipment. The common use and 
availability of bar code labels and scanning equipment and user-
friendly computerized inventory management systems, plus the ability of 
global positioning systems to precisely specify locations, should 
facilitate the development and maintenance of an inventory of PCB-
containing regulated equipment. Equipment owners previously told EPA 
that it was not possible to determine whether mineral oil-filled 
equipment contained PCBs unless the oil was tested, and testing was 
expensive. EPA agrees that it is necessary to collect oil to test it 
and there is a cost associated with the oil sample collection and 
chemical analysis. However, at the time of disposal it is already 
necessary to test to determine the PCB concentration to determine how 
the equipment is regulated for disposal. Based on current regulatory 
requirements, the cost of chemical analysis would have to be paid at 
the time of the disposal of the equipment, regardless of a non-
attrition-based phaseout. Collection and analysis of oil would only be 
an additional cost if EPA imposes a new requirement to test in-service 
and energized equipment.
    Currently there are several options available for equipment that is 
no longer operable, or is otherwise designated for disposal. For 
equipment with recyclable metals, some disposal companies are paying 
for this equipment, because they can recover their costs and make a 
profit, even when paying the waste generator for ``scrap metal.'' In 
2001, EPA facilitated the reclassification of electrical equipment 
making this a cost effective means of removing the risk from PCBs in 
equipment, while continuing to use the equipment until it no longer 
functions or is voluntarily removed from service for disposal (Ref. 
10).
    In 1996, EPA surveyed the PCB disposal industry and found that 
there was a large capacity surplus (Ref. 35). However, as the PCB 
disposal market increasingly becomes smaller, it may be that fewer 
disposers will find it economical to retain licenses and disposal 
facilities for this small market, decreasing the number of options 
available and very likely increasing the costs for the remaining 
options. Any increased cost of fuel employed in many disposal 
technologies and for the transportation of equipment to disposers will 
likely also increase disposal costs in the future. The potential 
increase in disposal costs in the future may make it economically 
advantageous to either reclassify equipment or dispose of it now, even 
if it has not reached the end of its useful life.
    Owners commented in 1979 that there were few commercial storers for 
PCB wastes (Ref. 3). Currently, EPA believes that there is an excess of 
storage capacity. Like disposal, commercial storage capacity could also 
decrease as the supply of PCB equipment diminishes. EPA seeks 
information on whether advancing the date of testing from some future 
disposal date to a date closer to the present time would present cost, 
economic, or management difficulties or advantages to the owners and 
operators of PCB-containing equipment.
    4. Information about an increased failure rate of vintage 
electrical equipment. A 2002 report, Life Cycle Management of Utility 
Transformer Assets, by the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and 
Insurance Company, uses information from claims filed by policy holders 
with the insurer for failed transformers, regardless of whether they 
contained PCBs (Ref. 23). The information has been used to estimate or 
predict when equipment will fail, based on historical failures for 
which claims were filed. This document also highlights that the 
electricity demand load grew 35% and the transmission capacity grew 18% 
over the 10 preceding years. EPA is concerned that the rate of failures 
for transformers manufactured in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s may 
increase substantially in the future. EPA seeks data on the failure 
rate in the last 10 years and the results and documentation of recent 
modeling of projections of failures into the future. EPA seeks 
information on any differences in failure rate for different types of 
equipment of different vintages, and differences in failure rates for 
equipment which is located indoors as compared to outdoors and what 
effect, if any, that electronic monitoring and other maintenance 
methods have had on failure rates. EPA's questions about failure rates 
are located in Unit XIV.G.
    5. Severe weather event and other natural disasters increase the 
potential risk from PCBs. There have been recent severe weather events 
(e.g., Hurricane Katrina (Ref. 44), Tornado in Greensburg, KS (Ref. 
45)) where there was significant damage to electrical equipment of all 
ages, both containing PCBs and not containing PCBs. Although there have 
not been reports of

[[Page 17655]]

natural disasters such as earthquakes, mudslides, or volcanic eruptions 
which resulted in significant spills of PCBs, there is a possibility 
that this could have occurred in some regions of the country. These 
unpreventable events contribute to catastrophically ending the useful 
life of PCB-containing equipment and the uncontrolled release of PCBs. 
EPA believes that one cost-effective protection against PCB releases 
from these weather events and natural disasters may be a proactive 
program to test equipment that is taken out of service for PCBs, and to 
remove, test, and replace or retrofill equipment in service that is 
known or assumed to contain PCBs, especially the equipment in locations 
and areas where a release would present the greatest risk. EPA is also 
concerned about areas which may not be directly contaminated from 
nearby equipment ravaged by severe weather, but where spilled PCBs from 
that weather event might be expected to migrate and accumulate, such as 
spillways and drinking water reservoirs. Answers to the questions about 
severe weather events in Unit XIV.H. and other related comments will 
assist EPA in the reassessment of the use of PCB-containing electrical 
equipment.
    6. Alternatives to PCB liquids. One type of information the Agency 
is soliciting for its proposed rulemaking relates to alternatives to 
the use of PCBs in liquid-filled equipment. To EPA's knowledge, 
satisfactory substitutes are available to replace PCBs in all 
electrical equipment applications. The Agency welcomes comments on the 
comparative costs and the effectiveness of various substitutes in 
reducing fires and heat-related degradation or destruction of 
equipment. EPA seeks information on the hazards and the risks posed by 
these PCB substitutes. EPA's questions about alternatives to PCB 
liquids are located in Unit XIV.I.
    7. Removal and replacement costs. EPA seeks information on the 
costs of removing and replacing old PCB-containing equipment with new 
or used non-PCB equipment based on attrition (i.e., end of equipment's 
useful life) and based on removal in advance of attrition. In 
particular, EPA would like to have information on:
  How often any equipment (PCB-containing or non-PCB-
containing) of the same age or size is replaced per year and the costs 
for replacement.
  Costs for replacement include cheapest source, foreign, or 
domestic, including transport and transaction costs.
  The price for replacement of various types and classes of 
equipment each year over the last 30 years, as well as estimated or 
projected future prices.

EPA seeks information that explains:
  The impact of changes in system distribution and transmission 
voltage on the potential obsolescence of mineral oil-filled equipment, 
which was manufactured before 1979 would be useful.
  The cost impact of replacing mineral oil-filled equipment, 
which was manufactured before 1979, with more modern equipment with 
respect to efficiency, longevity, or any other attribute which would 
create an economic incentive to hasten the phaseout of older equipment.
Further, EPA solicits information on the numbers of these units 
manufactured before 1979 that are:
  Expected to be replaced or excessed during system voltage 
changes.
  Planned for distribution in commerce for use. EPA would also 
like to know to whom these excessed units would most likely be sold.
EPA seeks information on the costs of service interruptions and revenue 
loss which may result from equipment replacement, either scheduled or 
unplanned. Similarly, EPA solicits comments on the current and 
estimated future supply of replacement equipment, when PCB-containing 
equipment is moved out of service before the end of its useful life. 
Reclassification options and procedures in the regulations were 
broadened in 2001 (Ref. 10) and EPA seeks comments on the costs and 
advantages found for this option, as opposed to disposal. EPA 
encourages small business owners, and small municipal and cooperative 
utilities to provide details on their PCB-containing electrical 
equipment replacement schedules and costs. EPA's questions about PCB 
equipment removal and replacement costs are located in Unit XIV.J.
    8. Current PCB waste disposal capacity. EPA solicits comments on 
the availability of disposal capacity for PCBs in liquids at 
concentrations >= 50 ppm by weight, and for other materials in drained 
electrical equipment. EPA also seeks comments on the economic benefits 
of decontamination and recycling of liquids or non-liquids in this 
equipment, where possible. In 1979, PCB disposal options and capacity 
were limited and the potential demand on disposal capacity from a ban 
or phaseout of PCB-containing equipment would have been high. EPA also 
seeks information on whether there currently is a charge to the 
equipment owner (waste generator) for disposing of equipment which will 
be decontaminated and then sold as scrap metal. EPA also seeks 
information on the cost for disposing of mineral oil contaminated with 
PCBs. EPA has seen a continuous decrease in the numbers of PCB disposal 
approvals issued over the last 10 years. EPA seeks comment on what the 
disposal industry predicts with respect to the future number of 
approved PCB disposal and storage companies, future disposal and 
storage capacity, and the future cost of commercial storage and 
disposal of electrical equipment waste as compared to current disposal 
costs. EPA's questions about PCB waste disposal capacity are located in 
Unit XIV.K.
    9. Current equipment management practices. EPA solicits information 
on the current management practices intended to reduce the risk from 
PCBs in the following types of equipment that contain PCBs at 
concentrations of >= 1 ppm: Electrical transformers, railroad 
transformers, mining equipment, electromagnets, switches, voltage 
regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid-
filled cable, and rectifiers. EPA encourages small business owners, 
small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their 
PCB-containing electrical equipment management activities. EPA's 
questions addressing the information that EPA seeks about equipment 
current management practices are located in Unit XIV.L.
    10. Electrical equipment which contains non-liquid PCBs at 
concentrations = 1 ppm. EPA seeks information on electrical 
equipment, such as tar-filled equipment, which was manufactured prior 
to July 31, 1979, in the following categories: Containing non-liquid 
PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm and < 50 ppm, >= 50 ppm and < 500 ppm, 
>= 500 ppm and < 100,000 ppm, and >= 100,000 ppm. EPA seeks this 
information for the following non-liquid filled equipment types: 
Transformers, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, electrical 
capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, rectifiers, and any other 
equipment populations (such as paper insulated lead cable and 
bushings). EPA's questions about electrical equipment which contains 
non-liquid PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm are located in Unit XIV.M.
    11. Impact of vandalism and theft on the risk from PCBs. The 
presence of PCBs in equipment subject to vandalism incidents could 
increase potential risk not only to the vandal, but to others in the 
area. In particular, EPA is concerned about areas which may not be 
directly contaminated from the nearby equipment impacted by vandalism 
but also areas where spilled PCBs from that

[[Page 17656]]

vandalism might be expected to migrate and accumulate such as low-lying 
residential neighborhoods and cropland. EPA solicits data on the number 
of units lost and the cost from losses from vandalism and theft of 
electrical transformers, railroad transformers, mining equipment, heat 
transfer systems, hydraulic systems, electromagnets, switches, voltage 
regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid-
filled cable, and rectifiers. EPA seeks information on the rate of 
occurrence of vandalism events involving PCB-containing equipment in 
each calendar year starting from 1998 until 2008, including how many 
gallons of oil have been lost from equipment and what has been the cost 
from this loss of oil. EPA's questions about the impact of vandalism 
and theft on the risk from PCBs are located in Unit XIV.N.
    12. Fraudulent export for scrap metal recovery. EPA is concerned 
about the potential for incidents where used electrical equipment is 
exported for purported reuse, but where the equipment is actually 
scrapped or smelted for recovery of metal components. Elimination of 
the totally enclosed determination for distribution in commerce will 
restrict the fraudulent practice of export of equipment in the guise of 
reuse, when the exported equipment will not be used, properly 
reclassified/decontaminated, or disposed of in an environmentally sound 
manner. EPA is concerned that metal recycling facilities may not manage 
the exported equipment and the PCBs in an environmentally sound manner; 
and scrap metal management workers may not be protected from exposure 
to PCBs or even know that PCBs are present in the exported equipment.
    13. Reclassification of askarel transformers. EPA is concerned that 
reclassification of askarel transformers (which were manufactured to 
contain >= 500,000 ppm PCBs) is generally ineffective because PCBs 
leach back out of internal components several years after the active 
processing to reclassify is completed. This seems plausible because of 
the nature of the inner structure of transformers. EPA is considering 
whether to restrict the reclassification option to electrical equipment 
which at the time of manufacture contains < 10,000 ppm (< 1%) PCBs, 
based on the inability to drain and flush PCBs efficiently from askarel 
PCB equipment. EPA's questions about the reclassification of askarel 
transformers are located in Unit XIV.O.
    14. Registration of PCB large capacitors. PCBs were formulated at 
concentrations from about 75 weight percent to about 100 weight percent 
(or 750,000 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm) in capacitors (Ref. 46). Therefore, 
the amount of PCBs in the smallest PCB large capacitor, which contains 
1.36 kg or 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid, is about 1.02 kg. (or about 2.25 
lbs.). There could be as much PCBs of the same PCB formulation in the 
smallest PCB large capacitor as the approximately the same amount of 
PCBs in a transformer which contains 600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs in 
mineral oil dielectric fluid. The regulations currently require that a 
mineral oil transformer containing 600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs and even 
a much smaller 1-gallon transformer containing 500 ppm of PCBs in 
mineral oil dielectric fluid to be registered with EPA. In order to 
protect first responders and others who might potentially be 
accidentally exposed to PCBs from PCB large capacitors, EPA is 
assessing whether to require registration of some or all PCB capacitors 
currently in use with EPA. EPA could publish and post the register of 
the capacitors on the PCB website as it has the Transformer 
Registration Database.

B. Railroad Transformers (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(b))

    At the time of the 1979 rulemaking there were a limited number of 
PCB transformers used on electric railroad engines and cars. The 
railroads where the askarel PCB equipment was used were located in the 
northeastern part of the country, mainly in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
and New York (Ref. 47). Because of the known leakage from this 
equipment and the requirement for frequent servicing, EPA found that 
the distribution in commerce of this equipment was not totally 
enclosed. The leaks from the use of this equipment have resulted in 
Superfund PCB cleanups of some Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 
Authority (SEPTA) track areas. EPA assumes that by now, all of the PCB 
railroad transformers have either been removed from service or the 
dielectric fluid has been replaced and that all railway transformers 
are now operating with dielectric fluid which contains < 50 ppm PCBs. 
EPA seeks comments on the continued use of PCBs in railroad 
transformers, and is considering eliminating the authorization for the 
use of PCBs in railroad transformers at concentrations greater than 1 
ppm. EPA's questions about the railroad transformers are located in 
Unit XIV.P.

C. Mining Equipment (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(c))

    In 1978, there were only very limited uses of PCBs in electric 
motors in fewer than 1,000 mining machines (Ref. 2). The motors were 
manufactured in the 1960s and early 1970s by one company and used in 
machinery manufactured by another company. The PCBs were used as a 
motor coolant. Because of its operating conditions, this equipment must 
frequently be rebuilt. Based on the small usage in 1979 and the 
expected relative short life of this limited use population, EPA 
believes it is likely that PCBs are no longer used in the motors of 
mining equipment. EPA seeks comments on whether there is any continued 
use of PCBs in such electric motors in mining equipment and whether EPA 
should eliminate the authorization for the use of PCBs in mining 
equipment at concentrations > 1 ppm. EPA's questions about mining 
equipment are located in Unit XIV.Q.

D. Heat Transfer Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(d)) and Hydraulic 
Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(e))

    Heat transfer systems and hydraulic systems have been authorized 
for use since 1984, when they contain PCBs at concentrations < 50 ppm. 
Because of the common leakage from this equipment and the frequent 
requirement for servicing, the distribution in commerce of this 
equipment was not found to be totally enclosed. The regulatory 
provisions for this equipment at 40 CFR 761.30(d) and (e) have been in 
place for almost 25 years. EPA seeks information on the number of these 
units, their types, and how frequently draining and refilling takes 
place. Because these types of equipment are often serviced by draining 
and refilling with new PCB-free fluid, EPA believes it is likely that 
any residual PCBs present in equipment that was in use in 1984, has 
been diluted through servicing to a concentration far below 50 ppm. 
There may be no reason to continue an authorization of PCBs in 
equipment at measurable concentrations. EPA seeks information 
demonstrating a need to continue to use PCBs in heat transfer systems 
and hydraulic systems at concentrations greater than 1 ppm.

E. Carbonless Copy Paper (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(f))

    In 1979, there were many files containing carbonless copy paper. 
EPA does not have information on whether the information on this 30-
year old, thin carbon copy paper is still legible, and if it is not 
legible, why it cannot be disposed of. Thirty years later it may be

[[Page 17657]]

feasible and economical to convert any necessary, legible information 
and records from carbonless copy paper to a different storage medium. 
EPA seeks information on the volume of records on carbonless copy 
paper, the records' locations, and the types of business, government 
agencies, or other holders of such documents. EPA would like to know 
whether holders of such documents are smaller or larger businesses, and 
whether the size or type of the business would affect the economic 
feasibility of document conversion. EPA seeks comments on whether 
carbonless copy paper containing PCBs is still in use and whether there 
is a need to continue the existing use authorization for this paper.

F. Continued Use of Porous Surfaces Contaminated with PCBs Regulated 
for Disposal by Spills of Liquid PCBs (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(p))

    EPA is considering changing 40 CFR 761.30(p) to reflect the 
continued potential risk from contaminated porous surfaces. Persons who 
are potentially exposed to contaminated porous surfaces should be 
protected from air emissions, which are not eliminated under the 
existing use authorizations by encapsulation or metal covers. EPA's 
questions about the use of contaminated porous surfaces are located in 
Unit XIV.R.

G. Use in Fluid and Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems 
(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(i), 40 CFR 761.30(s), and 40 CFR 761.30(t))

    In comments on the June 7, 1978, proposed rule (Ref. 5), which was 
finalized in 1979, two natural gas transmission companies claimed that 
they had PCBs in turbine compressors at concentrations >= 50 ppm, but 
they could not reduce these concentrations to levels < 50 ppm in the 
near future. One company claimed to have removed all of the PCB turbine 
oil in 1972. The companies claimed that the PCBs would not leak out of 
the compressors into other parts of the natural gas pipeline system. In 
the May 31, 1979 final rule (Ref. 3), EPA prohibited the use of PCBs at 
concentrations > 50 ppm in natural gas pipeline systems, effective as 
of May 1, 1980.
    In the early 1980s, PCBs were found in a cold trap in the gas line 
outside a home in New York. In 1981, EPA entered into agreements with 
13 natural gas transmission companies which had PCBs at concentrations 
>= 50 ppm in their systems but outside of turbine compressors (Ref. 
48).
    It is not clear exactly how the PCBs entered the systems if they 
did not come from the turbine compressors. After nearly 30 years of 
operations and after all known sources of PCBs were removed from these 
systems, EPA has information indicating that PCBs at levels >= 50 ppm 
continue to be found in natural gas pipeline systems including within 
equipment which is not specifically designed to collect such material. 
EPA believes that the authorized use conditions in the current 
regulations should have resulted in companies removing PCBs to the 
extent that there no longer are PCBs in the systems at concentrations 
>= 50 ppm.
    EPA is considering requiring sampling and analyzing individual 
condensate samples (not composites or accumulations) to determine the 
extent of the PCB contamination when any person finds PCBs in any 
pipeline system at concentrations >= 1 ppm. Owners would be required to 
analyze condensate from surrounding areas to confirm that regulated 
PCBs were not present in the system. Regardless of the original or 
current source of the PCBs, owners would report results of >= 50 ppm 
findings to EPA. EPA is also considering whether to propose ending the 
use authorization for PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm in these systems 
by 2020 or an earlier date. In this phase-down approach, owners would 
also be required to analyze current condensate in areas having 
historical PCB measurements to confirm the absence of PCBs during the 
period prior to the final phaseout date. If PCBs are found, owners 
would have to demonstrate they have reduced PCB concentrations to < 1 
ppm or have implemented engineering controls similar to the current 
requirements in 40 CFR 761.30(i)(1)(iii)(A)(4) to reduce and prevent 
migration of PCB impacted material. EPA seeks comments on the continued 
use of PCBs in fluid and gas transmission and distribution systems. 
EPA's questions about use in gas transmission and distribution systems 
are located in Unit XIV.S.
    EPA has little information on the need to continue the use 
authorizations at 40 CFR 761.30(s) for air compressor systems and 40 
CFR 761.30(t) for other gas or liquid transmission systems. The 10 
years that these authorizations have been in place should have allowed 
owners sufficient time to purge the PCBs from their systems. EPA is 
considering whether to terminate or significantly limit the duration of 
these authorizations.

H. Use in Research and Development (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(j), 
Scientific Instruments (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(k)), and 
Decontaminated Materials (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(u))

    EPA is not currently planning to reassess the authorizations for: 
Use in research and development, scientific instruments, and 
decontaminated materials. However, EPA welcomes comments on these use 
authorizations.

I. No Use Authorization for PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment Parts

    There is no use authorization for parts or detached ancillary 
equipment, such as bushings, for electrical equipment when separate 
from that equipment. Bushings contain insulating material separated 
from the primary equipment's insulating fluid. Bushings may be removed 
from equipment during servicing or transportation. Utilities have told 
EPA that it is necessary to store bushings for reuse, especially for 
large transmission electrical equipment. There is no use authorization 
in 40 CFR part 761, subpart B, for bushings, which are no longer 
attached to or associated with a specific article of authorized 
equipment (Ref. 10). EPA seeks information on the feasibility of 
reclassifying bushings or other ancillary equipment, which can be used 
as spare parts. EPA seeks information on the economic value of 
continuing to maintain such PCB-containing parts and ancillary 
equipment in inventories of utility companies and industrial 
facilities. EPA's questions about the use of PCB-containing electrical 
equipment parts are located in Unit XIV.Y.

J. Reassessment of the Possible Authorization of the Use of Some Non-
Liquid PCB-Containing Products

    The use of PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in caulk 
products, regardless of whether the PCBs were created by an inadvertent 
chemical reaction during the manufacturing process or were added to the 
caulk afterward, is not currently authorized under TSCA section 6. EPA 
requests comments on whether the use of PCBs in caulk should be 
authorized, and what data or other information is available on which to 
evaluate the risks and benefits of the use of PCB-containing caulk. 
EPA's questions about authorization of some non-liquid PCB-containing 
products are located in Unit XIV.Z.

VIII. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.35)

    EPA established limits on storage of PCB articles for reuse at 40 
CFR 761.35. These limits were established to curtail

[[Page 17658]]

storage practices which were not in keeping with the statutory 
objectives of:
    1. A general ban on use with limited exceptions.
    2. Quick disposal of PCB-containing equipment which was no longer 
used or usable.
    3. Protection of human health and the environment from risks 
presented by PCBs.
    When the PCB regulations were first promulgated in the late 1970's, 
EPA recognized that it might be necessary to have PCB-containing spare 
equipment to press into use when other new or reasonably new equipment 
needed to be replaced. However, nearly 30 years later, the demand for 
PCB-containing equipment replacements should be much lower. EPA has 
information indicating that the older unused PCB equipment, now 30 
years old or older, does emit PCBs even when sealed and still can leak 
even when it is not energized. EPA also seeks information about whether 
stored non-askarel equipment could be reclassified while it is in 
storage for reuse. EPA also is concerned that equipment, which is 
stored for reuse outside of a secure storage facility, is more 
susceptible to potential releases of PCBs to the environment from 
accidents, both weather-related and the result of the owner's 
activities, and to vandalism or theft.
    EPA seeks information on the location of equipment being stored for 
reuse, especially in relationship to the equipment it is to replace. 
EPA seeks information on the economic value of continuing to maintain 
PCB-containing equipment which is not in use, in inventories of utility 
companies and industrial facilities. EPA's questions about storage for 
reuse of PCB articles are located in Unit XIV.T.

IX. Distribution in Commerce of Electrical Equipment (Regulated at 40 
CFR 761.20)

    PCBs have been measured in the ambient air coming from PCB-
containing equipment in storage for disposal in an approved PCB storage 
facility. Information about the measurement of PCBs in the ambient 
environment around stored electrical equipment indicates that aging 
equipment appears to no longer be airtight, even if seemingly ``intact 
and non-leaking'' upon cursory visual inspection (Ref. 11). If this 
stored equipment is not airtight, there must also be releases during 
use and transportation (distribution in commerce) of this equipment, 
despite its deenergized state. EPA is also concerned about and seeks 
information on the frequency of PCB surface contamination on this 
equipment and the practice of routine inspection for the presence of 
residual PCB surface contamination on equipment, by using a standard 
wipe test. For this reason, EPA questions whether the historical 
determination that distribution in commerce of PCBs in electrical 
equipment still can be considered totally enclosed in accordance with 
TSCA section 6(e)(2)(C). Elimination of distribution in commerce of 
this PCB-containing equipment for reuse could also prevent the 
fraudulent practice of a guise of resale for reuse. One fraudulent 
practice is a claim of the export of regulated PCB-containing equipment 
for reuse to avoid proper domestic reclassification or disposal, when 
the equipment is intended only for foreign scrap metal recovery. EPA's 
questions about distribution in commerce are located in Unit XIV.U.

X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 ppm Level for Excluded PCB 
Products, in Particular for PCBs in Caulk

    The level of 50 ppm has been used in PCB use regulations since 
1979. Based on regulatory history, this number is based almost entirely 
on economic considerations. There are no traditional exposure and risk 
assessment calculations (Refs. 3 and 8). EPA seeks comments on the 
application of the value of 50 ppm as the upper value in the definition 
of Excluded PCB products in 40 CFR 761.3. One such excluded product is 
PCBs in caulk where PCBs are present at concentrations < 50 ppm. EPA is 
seeking comment and any supporting data or other information on whether 
the number 50 ppm should be changed given the recent realization that 
the use of PCBs in caulk may be widespread and may be an undue burden 
for schools if the exclusion continues at 50 ppm. EPA's questions about 
excluded PCB products are located in Unit XIV.X.

XI. Definitional Changes Under Consideration (Located at 40 CFR 761.3)

    EPA is considering proposing changes to the following definitions 
found at Sec. 761.3, and solicits comments on these changes.

A. PCB Articles

    The definition of PCB articles in Sec. 761.3 includes transformers 
and capacitors, but it has no mention of size or the volume of liquid 
contained in the article. EPA is considering changing this definition 
to regulate equipment containing >= 0.05 liters (approximately 1.7 
fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. Definitions for Capacitor, PCB 
Capacitor, PCB Transformer, and PCB-contaminated Electrical Equipment 
would be adjusted accordingly. This revision would correspond to 
minimum volumes for liquid-filled equipment found in the Stockholm 
Convention.
    EPA seeks information on the type and volume of PCB products that 
would be affected by such changes in the definition, as well as the 
cost, economic, and other impacts of these changes.

B. Excluded Manufacturing Process

    The current definition states, ``The concentration of inadvertently 
generated PCBs in products leaving any manufacturing site or imported 
into the United States must have an annual average of less than 25 ppm, 
with a 50 ppm maximum.'' EPA is considering whether to eliminate the 
annual average and whether the maximum concentration should be set at < 
1 ppm. EPA's questions about excluded manufacturing processes are 
located in Unit XIV.V.

C. Recycled PCBs

    The current definition states, ``The concentration of PCBs in paper 
products leaving any manufacturing site processing paper products or 
paper products imported into the United States must have an annual 
average of less than 25 ppm, with a 50 ppm maximum.'' EPA is 
considering whether to revise the annual average and whether the 
maximum should be lowered. Additionally, the definition requires the 
release of PCBs to ambient air at any point be at concentrations < 10 
ppm. EPA is considering whether the maximum allowable PCB concentration 
released to air should be lowered to be consistent with what the Agency 
has said about PCB exposures from PCBs in caulk (Ref. 49). EPA's 
questions about recycled PCBs are located in Unit XIV.W.

D. Quantifiable Level/Level of Detection

    In the years since this definition was first promulgated, 
analytical measurement technology has improved so that the current 
quantitation level/level of detection is lower. Currently, the 
quantitation level in mineral oil can be as low as, or lower than, 1 
ppm and the level of detection can be as low as, or lower than, 0.5 
ppm. The quantitation level and level of detection in other media such 
as air and water can be three orders of magnitude or more lower than 
the values for mineral oil. EPA is evaluating whether to change this 
definition to reflect to most current science, and solicits any 
information regarding such a change.

[[Page 17659]]

XII. Marking of All PCB Articles

    EPA is considering requiring marking of all PCB articles, which 
includes electrical equipment containing >= 50 ppm PCBs, and all 
storage areas. Some >= 50 ppm PCBs items are already required to be 
marked in 40 CFR 761.40:
     Above-ground sources of PCB liquids in natural gas 
pipeline systems.
     PCB containers.
     Electric motors using PCB coolants.
     Hydraulic systems using PCB hydraulic fluid.
     PCB heat transfer systems.
     PCB article containers.
     Areas used to store PCBs and PCB items for disposal.
     Transportation vehicles transporting more than 45 kg or 
99.5 lbs of items containing >= 50 ppm liquids, containers of >= 50 ppm 
liquids, or one (or more) PCB transformers.
    EPA discussed concerns about PCB releases from liquid-filled 
equipment, regardless of concentration, during natural disasters in 
Unit VII.A.5. The consequences of natural disasters and other events 
such as automobile collisions with equipment and vandalism (e.g., shots 
from firearms), may be more significant when damaging older and over-
loaded electrical equipment. In addition to those persons who might be 
accidentally exposed, it is important that public emergency responders 
as well as owners/maintainers be advised of the PCB content of PCBs in 
use or those catastrophically released from use as quickly as possible. 
In addition, residents and the public in proximity to regulated 
equipment have the right to know of the presence of PCBs. Many owners 
already know the locations of and have already marked PCB-contaminated 
equipment. EPA believes that marking of PCB-contaminated equipment also 
aids in planning management of equipment during transportation and 
storage for disposal. A possible requirement under consideration is for 
owners to locate and label PCB-contaminated equipment. This would 
require an owner to take additional labeling action beyond what is 
required in the current regulations for the use of PCB-contaminated 
equipment and the assumptions in 40 CFR 761.2. Once equipment was 
marked for use, it would not need to be re-marked at the time of 
disposal. In Unit XIV.A.-E., M., P., Q., and S. EPA has asked for 
specific numbers of PCB-contaminated equipment and the size of 
populations of equipment which is assumed by regulation to contain PCBs 
>= 50 ppm.

XIII. Public Participation

    In addition to the requests for information and comments contained 
in this document, EPA intends to involve stakeholders through a series 
of public meetings taking place in locations across the country. The 
purpose of these meetings is to receive stakeholder comments on the 
issue of EPA's reassessment of PCB use authorizations, including the 
questions described in Unit XIV.

A. Meeting Dates and Locations

    The meetings will be held as follows:
    1. New York, NY, May 4, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at EPA Region 2 
offices, Room 2735, Conference Room A (27\th\ Floor), 290 Broadway.
    2. Chicago, IL, May 18, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at the EPA 
Region 5 offices, Lake Michigan Room (12\th\ Floor), 77 West Jackson 
Blvd.
    3. Atlanta, GA, May 25, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA Region 
4 offices, Rooms 9D and 9E, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 
St., SW.
    4. Washington, DC, May 27, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA 
Headquarters, EPA East, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.

B. Meeting Procedures

    For additional information on the scheduled meetings, please see 
the PCB website (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) 
or contact Christine Zachek at (202) 566-2219 or 
zachek.christine@epa.gov.
    The meetings will be open to the public. To ensure that all 
interested parties will have an opportunity to comment in the allotted 
time, oral presentations or statements will be limited to 10 minutes. 
EPA therefore recommends that stakeholders who present oral comments 
also submit written comments following the instructions provided under 
ADDRESSES. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the technical 
person at least 10 days prior to the meeting to schedule presentations. 
Since seating for outside observers will be limited, those wishing to 
attend the meetings as observers are also encouraged to contact the 
technical person at the earliest possible date, but no later than 10 
days before the meetings, to ensure adequate seating arrangements.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Christine 
Zachek at (202) 566-2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov, preferably at 
least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as 
possible to process your request.

XIV. Request for Comment and Additional Information

    EPA invites public comment and any additional information in 
response to the questions identified in Unit XIV.A through Unit XIV.AA. 
Unit I.B. contains a description of points commenters should consider 
when preparing comments for submission to EPA, including how to submit 
any comments that contain CBI. No one is obliged to respond to these 
questions, and anyone may submit any information and/or comments in 
response to this request, whether or not it responds to every question 
in this unit.

A. Populations of Transformers (Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces 
of Dielectric Fluid)

    1. What percentage of your entire transformer inventory in use or 
storage for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all 
years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to date? If this information 
is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What 
percentage of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 
years old, and 50 years old?
    2. Of the inventory information provided in the previous question, 
how does the percentage differ for the following applications: 
Transmission, substation, pole top, and pad mount?
    3. What percentage of your transformer population consists of PCB 
transformers? How many units are in this population? How does the 
percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, 
municipal utilities, cooperative utilities, industrial owners, and 
other groups?
    4. What percentage of your transformer population consists of PCB-
contaminated transformers? How many units are in this population? How 
does the percentage and population compare for major interstate 
utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups?
    5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all 
potentially (based on year of manufacture and other information) 
contaminated equipment? Do you know where all regulated PCB equipment 
is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB 
transformers? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB 
transformers? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB-
contaminated transformers?
    6. What percentage of the transformer population consists of 
transformers which contain measurable PCBs between 1 and 50 ppm and 
were manufactured before July 31, 1979? How

[[Page 17660]]

many units are in this population? How does the percentage and 
population compare for major interstate utilities, municipal 
cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups?
    7. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing 
within 10 years the PCBs from the transformers through reclassification 
and disposing of the transformers, versus disposing of the transformers 
without reclassification at the end of their useful life?
    8. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is 
being used outdoors?
    9. Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of 
global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the PCB-containing 
equipment located? What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at 
each of these locations?
    10. What active or passive safety systems and equipment are 
installed and operating for PCB-containing equipment, including dikes, 
berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, remote monitoring systems and 
capture basins?

B. Populations of Electromagnets, Switches, and Voltage Regulators 
(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)

    1. What percentage of your entire electromagnets, switches, and 
voltage regulators inventory in use or stored for reuse was 
manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and 
all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, 
please provide alternative information, such as: What percent of the 
entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, and 50 
years old?
    2. What percentage of the electromagnets, switches, and voltage 
regulators population contains dielectric fluid with PCB concentrations 
>= 50 ppm PCB? How many units are in each population? How does the 
percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, 
municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups?
    3. The original use authorization for electromagnets was for a very 
restricted number of known applications in coal mine processing 
operations. How many electromagnets in these coal mining operations 
still use PCBs?
    4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all 
potentially (based on year of manufacture and other information) 
contaminated electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Do you 
know where all regulated PCB-containing electromagnets, switches, and 
voltage regulators are currently located? Have you removed all askarel 
containing PCB electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Have 
you removed all mineral oil containing PCB electromagnets, switches, 
and voltage regulators? Have you removed all mineral oil containing 
PCB-contaminated electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators?
    5. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the 
PCB-containing electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators and 
disposing of them within 10 years, versus disposing of the 
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators at the end of their 
useful life?
    6. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is 
being used outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, 
in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the 
PCB-containing equipment located?
    7. What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of these 
locations?
    8. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed 
and operating, including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion 
chambers, and capture basins?

C. Populations of Electrical Capacitors (Containing Greater Than 2 
Fluid Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)

    1. What percentage of your entire capacitor inventory in use or 
stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all 
years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information 
is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What 
percentage of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 
years old, or 50 years old?
    2. How does the percentage differ of these 30, 40, and 50 year-old 
and older capacitors for the following applications: Transmission, 
substation, pole top, and pad mount?
    3. What percentage of the total capacitor population is made up of 
PCB large capacitors? How many units are in this population? How does 
the percent and population compare for major interstate utilities, 
municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups?
    4. What percentage of your capacitor population is PCB-
contaminated? How many units are in this population? How does the 
percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, 
municipals cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups?
    5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all 
potentially (based on year of manufacture and other information) 
contaminated equipment? Do you know where all regulated PCB equipment 
is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB 
capacitors? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB capacitors? 
Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB-contaminated 
capacitors?
    6. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the 
regulated PCB capacitors and disposing them within 10 years as opposed 
to at the end of the useful life of the capacitors?
    7. How many PCB capacitors which are still in active use (not 
stored for reuse) contain >= 2 ounces of dielectric fluid and < 3 lbs. 
of dielectric fluid?
    8. What is the best way to determine whether a capacitor contains 
>= 2 ounces of dielectric fluid other than reading a nameplate or 
actually draining and weighing the dielectric fluid?
    9. What are the most likely minimum dimensions of a capacitor, 
which contains 2 or more ounces of PCB dielectric fluid?
    10. What percentage of the total population of PCB capacitors that 
are currently in use contain >= 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid 
ounces) of dielectric fluid and 1.36 kg. (< 3 lbs.) of dielectric 
fluid?
    11. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing 
within 10 years the PCBs from the PCB capacitors and disposing of them 
versus disposing of the PCB capacitors at the end of their useful life?
    12. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is 
being used outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, 
in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the 
PCB-containing equipment located?
    13. What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of 
these locations?
    14. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is 
installed and operating, including dikes, berms, safety valves, 
expansion chambers, and capture basins?

D. Populations of Circuit Breakers, Reclosers, and Liquid-filled Cable 
(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)

    1. What percentage of circuit breakers, reclosers, and liquid-
filled cables inventory in use or stored for reuse was manufactured 
each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years 
from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, please provide 
alternative information, such as:

[[Page 17661]]

What percent of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 
years old, and 50 years old?
    2. What percentage in each population of your circuit breakers, 
reclosers, and liquid-filled cable population contains dielectric fluid 
with PCB concentrations >= 50 ppm is PCB? How many units are in each 
population?
    3. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all 
potentially contaminated breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables? 
Do you know where all regulated PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid-
filled cables are currently located? Have you removed all circuit 
breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables containing mineral oil 
with >= 50 ppm PCBs-contaminated circuit breakers, reclosers, and 
liquid-filled cables?
    4. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing 
within 10 years the PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables 
and disposing of them versus disposing of the PCB breakers, reclosers, 
and liquid-filled cables at the end of their useful life?
    5. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is 
being used outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, 
in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the 
PCB-containing equipment located?
    6. What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of these 
locations?
    7. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed 
and operating, including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion 
chambers, and capture basins?

E. Populations of Rectifiers (Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of 
Dielectric Fluid)

    1. What percentage of your rectifiers inventory in use or stored 
for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years 
up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not 
available, please provide alternative information, such as: What 
percentage of the entire rectifier inventory is 30 years old, 40 years 
old, and 50 years old?
    2. What percentage of your rectifier population contains dielectric 
fluid with PCB concentrations >= 50 ppm PCBs? How many units are in 
this population?
    3. What percentage of your rectifier population is PCB-
contaminated? How many units are in this population?
    4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all 
potentially contaminated rectifiers? Do you know where all regulated 
PCB rectifiers are currently located? Have you removed all askarel PCB 
rectifiers? Have you removed all rectifiers containing mineral oil with 
>= 500 ppm PCBs? Have you removed all rectifiers containing mineral oil 
with >= 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCBs?
    5. What percent of electrical utilities and other owners has 
removed all mineral oil PCB rectifiers?
    6. What percent of electrical utilities and other owners has 
removed all mineral oil PCB-contaminated rectifiers?
    7. What would be the estimated cost (and why) for removing these 
PCB rectifiers and disposing of them within 10 years as opposed to at 
the end of the useful life of the rectifiers?
    8. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is 
being used outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, 
in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the 
PCB-containing equipment located?
    9. What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of these 
locations?
    10. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is 
installed and operating, including dikes, berms, safety valves, 
expansion chambers, and capture basins?

F. Servicing

    1. How long does servicing extend the useful service life of each 
type of equipment?
    2. How does servicing alter the likelihood of equipment failures?
    3. How does servicing change the ultimate likelihood of the release 
of PCBs?

G. Failure of Vintage PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment

    1. How do failure rates differ for equipment which has been rebuilt 
or serviced in particular ways, relative to equipment that remains 
substantially as it was originally installed?
    2. EPA seeks information to project the rate, location, and amount 
of PCB releases, and the causes of the releases. For example, what are 
the risks of failure involving electrical surges, insulation failure, 
or electrical fires as compared to the rupture of the tanks containing 
the PCBs?
    3. What percentage of the entire transformer inventory, which was 
in use or storage for reuse and which was manufactured before July 31, 
1979, failed in the following time periods:
    a. All years between January 1, 1940 and December 31, 1949;
    b. Each year between 1950 and 1980; and
    c. All years between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 2008?
    4. If this information is not available, please provide information 
for alternate time intervals.
    5. What forms of preventive maintenance or remote monitoring are 
used to warn owners or operators of a potential or impending equipment 
failure?
    6. With respect to a company's PCB-containing equipment, on what 
equipment are these or other preventive maintenance or remote 
monitoring techniques employed?
    7. For drainable and refillable mineral oil containing PCB 
articles, how do the purchase price and operational costs for this 
approach compare to reclassification for transformers or reclassifiable 
equipment?
    8. How do failure rates differ for equipment which has been rebuilt 
or serviced in particular ways, compared to equipment that remains 
substantially as it was originally installed?
    9. What have been and are the insurance costs for the replacement 
of failed PCB-containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this 
equipment over the past 30 years?
    10. How would these insurance costs for the replacement of failed 
PCB-containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment 
be expected to change in the next 20 years?

H. Damage to Equipment During Severe Weather Events

    1. What kind of steps can be taken to prevent release of dielectric 
fluid from damage during adverse severe weather events such as 
hurricanes, tornados, floods, and earthquakes?
    2. What is the cost per unit of these steps compared to the cost 
of: Removal and disposal of askarel containing units; or 
reclassification or removal and disposal of the mineral oil containing 
units?
    3. What is the cost to cleanup an average catastrophic weather 
release of dielectric fluid and the disposal of the waste and the 
equipment plus any damages to private or public property?
    4. How does this cleanup and related costs compare to the cost of: 
Removal and disposal of askarel containing units; or reclassification 
or removal and disposal of the mineral oil containing units?
    5. What have been and are the insurance costs as the result of 
damage from severe weather events for the replacement of failed PCB-
containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment over 
the past 30 years?

[[Page 17662]]

    6. How would these insurance costs as the result of damage from 
severe weather events for the replacement of failed PCB-containing 
equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment be expected to 
change in the next 20 years?
    7. How has the weather-related liability insurance cost changed for 
owners of PCB-containing equipment over the last 30 years? Over the 
last 20 years? Over the last 5 years?
    8. EPA seeks information on the rate of occurrence of severe 
weather events involving PCB-containing equipment in each calendar year 
starting from 1998 until 2008:
    a. What types of equipment were involved?
    b. Where was the equipment located (indoors or outdoors)?
    c. Did spills occur as a result of the severe weather events?
    d. What was the amount released in gallons of liquid, and if PCBs 
were presents what was the concentration in ppm?
    e. How much liquid was contained and recovered?
    f. What human health or environmental exposure and effects were 
observed or recorded?
    g. How were the exposures and effects estimated or measured?

I. Alternatives to PCB Liquids

    1. What are the PCB substitutes currently available commercially?
    2. What are the human health and environmental effects of exposure 
to PCB substitutes when they are released to the environment?
    3. What are the human health and property damage risks due to the 
flammability properties of the PCB substitutes?
    4. What is the likelihood that equipment containing the PCB 
substitutes have releases of the substitute materials, compared with 
the likelihood that equipment containing PCBs have releases of PCBs?
    5. What other information about PCB substitutes is available that 
would inform EPA's consideration of the trade-offs that would be 
required by a PCB phaseout?

J. Removal and Replacement Costs

    1. How many PCB liquid disposal companies have been operating at 
the end of each year for the last 10 years?
    2. How many PCB equipment (drained or undrained) disposal companies 
have been operating at the end of each year for the last 10 years?
    3. What has the average disposal cost been for a gallon of PCB oil 
containing >= 50 ppm and < 500 ppm at the end of each year for the last 
10 years?
    4. What has been the average disposal cost for a gallon PCB oil 
containing from >= 500 ppm to <= 10,000 ppm at the end of each year for 
the last 10 years?
    5. What has been the average disposal cost for a gallon or of 
askarel oil containing > 100,000 ppm PCBs at the end of each year for 
the last 10 years?
    6. What has been the average cost per ton for disposing of drained, 
oil-filled equipment, which contained >= 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCB at 
the end of each year for the last 10 years?
    7. What has been the average cost per ton for disposing of drained, 
oil-filled equipment which contained >= 500 ppm PCB at the end of each 
year for the last 10 years?
    8. What has been the average cost per ton for disposing of drained 
askarel-filled equipment > 100,000 ppm PCB at the end of each year for 
the last 10 years?
    9. What has been the average cost per pound, per ton, or per 
kilovolt amp (KVA) been for recycling the metal from drained oil-filled 
transformers which contained >= 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCB at the end of 
each year for the last 10 years?
    10. What sorts of incentives might enable organizations with 
limited budgets to remove regulated PCBs and PCB equipment for their 
systems and facilities?

K. PCB Waste Disposal Capacity

    1. What has been the permitted PCB disposal capacity for liquid 
PCBs for companies which have been operating at the end of each year 
for the last 10 years?
    2. At what average percent of permitted PCB disposal capacity have 
the PCB liquid disposal companies operated per year for the last 10 
years?
    3. What has been the permitted PCB disposal capacity for drained 
PCB equipment for companies which have been operating at the end of 
each year for the last 10 years?
    4. At what average percent of permitted PCB disposal capacity have 
the drained PCB equipment disposal companies operated per year for the 
last 10 years?
    5. For a transformer containing 100 gallons of 250 ppm oil, how 
does the cost compare for:
    a. Reclassifying to a non PCB transformer (draining, refilling with 
new/clean oil, and disposing of the PCB oil and reusing the 
transformer)? Reclassifying to a transformer containing < 1 ppm PCBs?
     b. Disposing of the oil and landfilling the drained transformer?
     c. Disposing of the oil and recovering the metal for recycling?

L. Current Management Practices for Equipment (Other Than Equipment 
Included in Unit XIV.A.-F.)

    1. If you are a PCB equipment owner, which of the following have 
you completed:
    a. Identified all PCB-containing equipment?
    b. Routinely tested equipment for its PCB content?
    c. Tested all equipment known or assumed to contain PCBs?
    d. Reclassified known PCB equipment or equipment, which is newly 
tested and found to be positive for PCBs?
    e. Disposed of, without recycling metals, known PCB equipment, or 
equipment which is newly tested and found to be positive for PCBs?
    f. Disposed of, to include recycling metals, known PCB equipment, 
or equipment which is newly tested and found to be positive for PCBs?
    g. Distributed in commerce to someone else for use known PCB 
equipment, or equipment which is newly tested and found to be positive 
for PCBs?
    h. Recorded the locations of all equipment or a particular type of 
equipment, such as transformers or capacitors, containing > 500 ppm 
PCBs?
    i. Recorded the locations of all of a particular type of equipment, 
such as transformers containing > 50 ppm PCBs?
    j. Recorded the locations of all of a particular type of equipment, 
such as transformers containing > 1 ppm PCBs?
    k. Tested all mineral oil containing equipment, or a particular 
type of equipment (such as transformers), which was manufactured before 
1979?
    l. Labeled all PCB-containing equipment, even though PCB equipment 
containing < 500 ppm is not required to be marked?
    m. Removed from service and disposed of all PCB-containing 
equipment or a particular type of equipment (such as PCB-contaminated 
transformers or PCB large capacitors)?
    2. What are the costs associated with such activities in question 
No. 1 in Unit XIV.L.?
    3. What are the costs of the practice of preventive maintenance and 
the re-building of equipment to meet changing service requirements and/
or industry or company codes?
    4. How well does preventive maintenance or rebuilding effect 
extension of the expected service life of equipment?

M. Equipment Containing Non-liquid PCBs

    1. What is the total number of units (liquid filled plus non-liquid 
filled) in

[[Page 17663]]

each equipment category, such as transformers?
    2. What total number of non-liquid units in each equipment 
category, such as transformers, is in each of these PCB concentration 
ranges: >= 1 ppm and < 50 ppm, >= 50 ppm and < 500 ppm, >= 500 ppm and 
< 100,000 ppm, and >= 100,000 ppm?
    For example, fill in the following table:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of non-liquid
                                     Total number of liquid  filled units with >= 1   Number of non-liquid   Number of non-liquid   Number of non-liquid
              Category               filled plus non-liquid     parts per million     filled units with >=   filled units with >=  filled units with  >=
                                         filled units in       (ppm) and < 50 ppm     50 ppm and < 500 ppm      500 ppm and  <        100,000 ppm PCBs
                                           population                 PCBs                    PCBs             100,000 ppm PCBs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transformers                         1,000                   0                       2                      0                                0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacitors                           200                     0                       0                      0                                10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etc.                                                                                                                               .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. What is the difference in the locations used for liquid filled 
units, versus non-liquid filled units located?
    4. How much does it cost to test (sample collection, extraction, 
chemical analysis, and recordkeeping) non-liquid filled equipment to 
determine the PCB concentration?
    5. Other than chemical analysis, what methods (such as application 
type, nameplate, model number, manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to 
identify PCB containing non-liquid filled equipment?

N. Damage Due to Vandalism or Theft

    1. What types of equipment were involved?
    2. Where was the equipment located (indoors or outdoors)? Did 
spills occur as a result of the vandalism?
    3. What was the amount released in gallons of liquid, and if PCBs 
were present what was the concentration in ppm?
    4. How much liquid was contained and recovered?
    5. What human health or environmental exposure and effects were 
observed or recorded?
    6. How were the exposures and effects which were reported in 
response to question No. 5 in Unit XIV.N. estimated or measured?
    7. What have been and are the insurance costs as the result of 
vandalism or theft for the replacement of failed PCB-containing 
equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment over the past 
30 years?
    8. How would these insurance costs as the result of vandalism or 
theft for the replacement of failed PCB-containing equipment and 
cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment change in the next 20 years?

O. Reclassification of Askarel Transformers

    1. If you have attempted to reclassify an askarel-filled unit and 
have been unsuccessful, how long did you spend draining and refilling 
and how many times did you drain and refill when PCBs still ``leached 
back'' to a concentration >= 500 ppm for each unit?
    2. What was the cost of each unsuccessful reclassification?
    3. How many askarel transformers or other askarel PCB articles 
(such as voltage regulators) have you reclassified successfully to PCB-
contaminated status or non-PCB status?
    4. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled 
equipment, how many times was it necessary to drain and refill the 
equipment?
    5. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled 
equipment, if the equipment was also flushed, what flushing procedure 
did you use?
    6. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled 
equipment, how long did it take to reclassify the equipment from the 
first drain and refilling to a permanent PCB measurement at the new 
regulatory status of PCB-contaminated or non-PCB? How often was 
reclassification later proven to be unsuccessful, because PCBs leached 
back above the target reclassification level?
    7. What was the cost of each successful reclassification?

P. Railroad Transformers

    1. In what railroad systems are PCB transformers and PCB-
contaminated transformers still in use as railroad transformers?
    2. What percentage of railroad transformers are PCB transformers?
    3. How many railroad transformers are PCB transformers?
    4. What percentage of railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated 
transformers?
    5. How many railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated 
transformers?
    6. What is the expected life of a transformer now in service as a 
railroad transformer before it requires routine servicing of the 
dielectric fluid?
    7. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing 
within 10 years the PCBs from the railroad transformers through 
reclassification and disposing of them versus disposing of the railroad 
transformers without reclassification at the end of their useful life?

Q. Mining Equipment

    1. At what locations and for what applications are PCBs currently 
used in mining equipment?
    2. What percent of these pieces of equipment, which are found in 
these applications, contain PCBs?
    3. How many pieces of equipment in these applications contain PCBs?
    4. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing 
within 10 years the PCBs from the mining equipment and disposing of 
them versus disposing of the mining equipment at the end of their 
useful life?

R. Use of Contaminated Porous Surfaces

    1. What has the average per ton, drum, or cubic yard disposal cost 
been to dispose of contaminated non-liquid material (such as soil or 
concrete) from a spill of PCB oil containing >= 50 ppm each year for 
the last 10 years? Please differentiate costs based on PCB 
concentration (e.g., < 50 ppm PCB waste, >= 50 ppm, etc.) and based on 
type of disposer (e.g., landfill, incinerator, etc.).
    2. How often is there a planned major outage to equipment mounted 
on concrete pads or floors? How long is such a planned outage?

S. Use in Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems

    1. How many gallons of >= 50 ppm condensate have been removed and 
disposed of annually from natural gas pipelines owned by each 
individual gas transmission company and distribution company starting 
in 1998?
    2. Do transmission companies regularly test the condensate for 
PCBs? If so, what is done with the PCBs when found?
    3. What locations in the system have the most condensate removed?

[[Page 17664]]

    4. What time of year is most condensate removed?
    5. How do natural gas transmission and distribution companies test 
for PCBs in dry systems?

T. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles

    1. How many pieces of in-use equipment are the stored equipment 
items being kept to replace?
    2. Where is the equipment which is to be replaced by the stored 
equipment located with respect to other potential indoor secure storage 
areas?
    3. What is the historical lifetime and turnover (removal from 
storage for disposal) rate per year of the in-use equipment?
    4. When do owners plan to replace this in-use equipment with non-
PCB equipment or reclassify this in-use equipment?
    5. When do owners plan to replace the stored equipment with non-PCB 
equipment or reclassify this stored equipment?
    6. What is the annualized cost of storing and managing this 
equipment?
    7. What would be the cost of replacement of this equipment?
    8. What would be the cost of reclassifying this equipment, where 
authorized?
    9. What is the likelihood and consequences of service interruptions 
and loss of revenue if these replacement devices were not available at 
the site of the equipment to be replaced?
    10. What is the history (number of occurrences, dates, amounts and 
cost to clean up) of spills or other releases of PCBs from this 
equipment, which is being stored for reuse?

U. Distribution in Commerce

    1. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the 
number of units which were distributed in commerce each year over the 
last 5 years of used but working askarel-filled equipment?
    2. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the 
number of units which were distributed in commerce each year over the 
last 5 years of used but working mineral oil filled PCB (>= 500 ppm) 
equipment?
    3. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the 
number of units which were distributed in commerce each year of used 
but working mineral oil filled PCB-contaminated (>= 50 ppm and < 500 
ppm) equipment?
    4. How many units of regulated PCB-electrical equipment were sold 
each year over the last 5 years for domestic scrap metal recovery?
    5. How many units of regulated PCB-electrical equipment were sold 
each year over the last 5 years for foreign scrap metal recovery?
    6. How many units of regulated PCB-electrical equipment were 
exported for use each year over the last 5 years for use?
    7. What has been the average purchase price of a new or rebuilt 
(PCB-free) 100 KVA mineral oil filled transformer and a new (PCB-free) 
100 KVAR capacitor every year over the last 10 years?
    8. How different is the average purchase price of new or rebuilt 
(PCB-free) larger or smaller transformers and capacitors?
    9. What is the average number of days between an order and delivery 
for a new or rebuilt replacement PCB-free 100 KVA transformer and a new 
replacement PCB-free 100 KVAR capacitor every year over the last 10 
years?
    10. How long does it take for a delivery for a replacement for a 
new or rebuilt PCB-free large (> 250 KVA) transformer, a smaller (< 250 
KVA) transformer, and larger (> 1.36 kg [3 lbs.] of dielectric fluid) 
capacitors?

V. Excluded Manufacturing Processes

    1. How many excluded manufacturing processes are currently 
operating or, if not currently operating, expect to be operating in the 
next 5 years?
    2. What is the estimated total annual weight in tons of PCBs 
produced each year over the last 5 years and in the next 5 years in 
each of the following categories: Products, solid waste, waste water, 
and air emissions?
    3. What are the type and volume of PCB products that would be 
affected by such changes in the definition, as well as the cost, 
economic, and other impacts of these changes?

W. Recycled PCBs

    1. In any of the last 5 years have you anyone found PCBs at 
concentrations >= 1 ppm in recycled paper? How often? What was the 
source of the feedstock paper?
    2. What steps can be taken or have been taken to reduce the PCB 
concentration in recycled paper?
    3. What is the cost of implementing these steps to reduce the PCB 
concentration in recycled paper if they have not already been 
implemented?
    4. What are the type and volume of PCB products that would be 
affected by a potential change in the definition of recycled paper 
(required to contain less than 1 ppm PCBs), as well as the cost, 
economic, and other impacts of these changes?

X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 ppm Level for Excluded PCB 
Products (e.g., Caulk)

    1. What should the maximum PCB concentration, if any, be for the 
``excluded PCB products'' as defined in 40 CFR 761.3?
    2. What should the minimum PCB concentration be for the ``excluded 
PCB products'' as defined in 40 CFR 761.3?
    3. Should there be a new separate use authorization for certain 
currently excluded PCBs found in certain products such as paint, 
gaskets, or caulk?
    4. What types of non-liquid products (adhesives, caulk, coatings, 
grease, paint, rubber/plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, 
waxes, etc.), which were manufactured before 1979 and are currently in 
use, contain PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 ppm?
    5. What types of liquid products (pump oil, solvent, or other 
fluid), other than those authorized for use in 40 CFR 761.30, contain 
PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 ppm?
    6. For each class of non-liquid and liquid product, what percent of 
the overall product market share is taken by the PCB-containing 
product?
    a. What is the estimated total weight or volume of each type of 
product in current use?
    b. What kinds of use has each product been applied to, on, or in?
    c. What is the geographic distribution of each product use?
    d. What is the average expected lifetime of the product?
    e. When would the product normally be replaced as part of 
preventive maintenance?

Y. Use of PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment Parts

    1. What PCB-containing spare parts, such as bushings and other 
ancillary equipment, are currently needed for what equipment?
    2. What is the feasibility of reclassifying PCB-containing spare 
parts?
    3. What is the annualized cost of storing and managing PCB-
containing spare parts?
    4. What would be the cost of replacement of PCB-containing spare 
parts?
    5. What are the likelihood and consequences of service 
interruptions and loss of revenue if the PCB-containing spare parts 
were not available?
    6. Where are these spare parts located geographically in relation 
to the equipment they will be used on?

[[Page 17665]]

    7. In what industrial or commercial settings can the equipment, 
which the spare parts will be used on, be found?

Z. Reassessment of the Possible Authorization of the Use of Some Non-
Liquid PCB-Containing Products

    1. What comments can you provide that will inform EPA as to whether 
to authorize or not authorize the use of caulk, paint, or other non-
liquid PCB product at concentrations exceeding the level of 50 ppm 
currently provided in the PCB regulations for excluded PCB products?
    2. What data or other information is available on which to evaluate 
the risks and benefits of the use of PCB-containing caulk, paint, or 
other non-liquid PCB product?
    3. What PCB concentrations should be authorized for the use of PCB-
containing caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB products?

AA. PCBs on Maritime Vessels

    1. In what vessel systems is PCB-containing equipment still in use 
on vessels?
    2. What percentage of vessel equipment uses liquid PCBs?
    3. What percentage of vessel equipment uses non-liquid PCBs?
    4. What is the expected life of equipment containing PCBs on 
vessels now in service before it requires routine servicing?
    5. What is the difference in the locations used for liquid filled 
equipment, versus non-liquid filled equipment located?
    6. How much does it cost to identify and test (sample collection, 
extraction, chemical analysis, and recordkeeping) liquid filled 
equipment and/or non-liquid filled equipment on vessels to determine 
the PCB concentration?
    7. Other than chemical analysis, what methods (such as application 
type, nameplate, model number, manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to 
identify PCB-containing equipment?
    8. Do non-liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling pose any greater risk to 
the health of the public than liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling?
    9. Should the ``totally enclosed'' exemption accorded to liquid 
PCBs enclosed in cabling be extended to solid PCBs?

 XV. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for 
this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. The 
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA in developing this ANPRM, including 
documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in 
the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located 
in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please 
consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    1. Hutzinger, O.; Safe, S.; and Zitko, V. Chemistry of PCBs. Robert 
E. Krieger Publishing Company. 1983.
    2. EPA. Microeconomic Impacts of the Proposed ``PCB Ban 
Regulation.'' EPA 560/6-77-035.
    3. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, 
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule. Federal 
Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979) (FRL-1075-2).
    4. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Toxic Substances Control; 
Notice. Federal Register (42 FR 65264, December 30, 1977) (FRL-837-1).
    5. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, 
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Bans; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 
(43 FR 24802, June 7, 1978) (FRL-886-6).
    6. Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency. 
636 F2d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
    7. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Use in Electrical 
Equipment; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register (46 
FR 16096, March 10, 1981) (FRL-1773-2).
    8. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, 
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Use in Electrical 
Equipment Final Rule. Federal Register (47 FR 37342, August 25, 1982) 
(FRL-2184-6).
    9. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Electrical Transformers Final 
Rule. Federal Register (50 FR 29170, July 17, 1985) (FRL-2835-6).
    10. EPA. Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical 
Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 17602, April 2, 2001) 
(FRL-5790-7).
    11. Mills III, William James. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy in the Graduate College Public Health Sciences of the 
University of Illinois at Chicago. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dioxins 
and Furans in Ambient Air During the Smithville PCB Incineration 
Project. 2001.
    12. EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dose Response Assessment and Application to 
Environmental Mixtures (EPA/600/P-96/001F). Available on-line at: 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486.
    13. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Polychlorinated 
Biphenyls (PCBs) (CASRN 1336-36-3). June 1, 1997. Available on-line at: 
http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0294.htm.
    14. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls 
(PCBs). November 2000. Available on-line at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.
    15. EPA. Compilation of Total Annual PCB Large Capacitors and Total 
PCB Trnsformers Disposed in the United States From Annual Reports from 
Commercial PCB Disposal Companies from 1991-2007.
    16. EPA. PCB Transformer Registration Database. January 2008. 
Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/data.htm.
    17. EPA. Region 9. Exxon Transformer Case Press Release. Available 
on-line at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/2dd7f669225439b78525735900400c31/66964079fdc4700e852574ac006f4537.
    18. United States Coast Guard. National Response Center. Available 
on-line at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrclegal.html.
    19. E-mail messages from Nichaulus C. Threatt of the National 
Response Center to John Smith, dated 8-19-2009 and 9-10-2009.
    20. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 
Ratification Status. Available on-line at: http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
    21. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants 
(LRTAP POPs). Available on-line at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/status/98pop_st.htm.
    22. Environment Canada. PCB Regulations Canada Gazette. Part II, 
Vol. 142, No. 19, pp. 2078-2140. September 17, 2008.
    23. Bartley, W. Life Cycle Management of Utility Transformer 
Assets. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company. October 
10-11, 2002.
    24. EPA. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds National 
Academy Sciences (NAS) Review Draft. October 2004. Available on-line 
at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/nas-review.
    25. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Stakeholder Forum-1998, 
Implementing the Binational Toxics

[[Page 17666]]

Strategy, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Workshop Great Lakes 
Monitoring. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/pcbsrce/pcbsrce.html.
    26. Panero, M.; Boehme, S.; and Mu[ntilde]oz, G. Pollution 
Prevention and Management Strategies for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in 
the New York/New Jersey Harbor. Report from the Harbor Consortium of 
the New York Academy of Sciences. February 2005.
    27. Covaci, A.; Voorspoels, S; Schepens, P.; Jorens, P.; Blust, R.; 
and Neels, H. The Belgian PCB/dioxin crisis-8 years later: An overview. 
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. Vol. 25, Issue 2. March 
2008.
    28. van Larebeke, N.; Hens, L.; Schepens, P.; Covaci, A.; Baeyens, 
J.; Everaert, K.; Bernheim, J.; Vlietinck, R.; and De Poorter, G. The 
Belgian PCB and Dioxin Incident of January-June 1999: Exposure Data and 
Potential Impact on Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109:265-
273. 2001.
    29. Buzby, J. and Chandran, R. Chapter 8, The Belgian Dioxin Crisis 
and Its Effects on Agricultural Production and Exports. International 
Trade and Food Safety/AER-828 Economic Research Service, USDA.
    30. Reuters. Used Oil May have Caused Irish Food Crisis: Paper. 
December 10, 2008.
    31. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News. Irish pork 
contaminations probed. December 8, 2008. Available on-line at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7770476.stm.
    32. Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Recall Information last 
reviewed March 9, 2009. Available on-line at: http://www.fsai.ie/food_businesses/topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/recall_information.html.
    33. EPA, OPPT. PCB Spill Cleanup in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. EPA-
745-N-98-001. OPPT Tribal News. Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 1-2. September 
1998.
    34. Senator Byron Dorgan text from the Congressional Record. pp. 
S2914-2915. Available on-line at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S2914&dbname=1998_record.
    35. EPA. John H. Smith personal communication with J. Gidner, BIA. 
September 1999.
    36. EPA, Office of Water. Guidance for conducting fish and wildlife 
consumption surveys. EPA-823-B-98-007. 1998. Available on-line at: 
http://www.epa.gov/fishadvisories/files/fishguid.pdf.
    37. EPA. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria 
for the Protection of Human Health. Washington, DC: Office of Water. 
EPA-822-B-00-004. 2000. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.
    38. Fitzgerald, E.; Hwang, S.; Gomez, M.; Bush, B.; Yang, B.; and 
Tarbell, A. Environmental and occupational exposures and serum PCB 
concentrations and patterns among Mohawk men at Akwesasne. Journal of 
Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 17:269-278. 2007.
    39. Tribal Rights and Fish Consumption Workshop, University of 
Washington School of Public Health. August 12-13, 2009. Available on-
line at: http://depts.washington.edu/tribalws/index.php?doc=schedule.
    40. Hardy, J. Evaluation of Contaminants in Puget Sound Fish and 
Resulting Fish Advisory. Washington State Department of Health. 
November 2, 2009. Available on-line at:http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/2009/day1d.ppt.
    41. Sandau, C.; Ayotte, P.; Dewailly, E.; Duffe, J.; and Norstrom, 
R. Analysis of Hydroxylated Metabolites of PCBs (OH-PCBs) and Other 
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds in Whole Blood from Canadian Inuit. 
Environ Health Perspect. 108:611-616. July 2000. Available on-line at: 
[Online 25 May 2000] http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2000/108p611-616sandau/108p611.pdf.
    42. USWAG. Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down of PCB-Containing 
Equipment. October 2005.
    43. EPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for 
Disposal; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11096, March 18, 1996) 
(FRL-5354-8).
    44. Helmick, R. W. and Zemanek, J. H. How Entergy Battled Back-to-
back Hurricanes. Entergy Corporation, Electric Light and Power. January 
2006.
    45. EPA. EPA Personnel Deployed to Greensburg, Kansas, for Tornado 
Response. May 7, 2007. Available on-line at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/c0b30985df7b3cac852572d5006f3917!OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=5&Expand=1.
    46. ASTM International. D2233-86 (1997). Standard Specification for 
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Askarels) for Capacitors (Withdrawn 
in 2003).
    47. EPA. Support Document/Voluntary Environmental Impact Statement 
and PCB Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use 
Ban Regulation: Economic Impact Analysis. pp. 32-43. April 1979.
    48. EPA. Information on the Natural Gas Pipeline Agreement with 
Texas Eastern. pp. 33. 1981.
    49. EPA. PCBs in Caulk in Older Buildings. Available on-line at: 
http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk.

XVI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes to 
the document that were made in response to OMB comments received by EPA 
during that review have been documented in the docket as required by 
the Executive Order.
    Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, 
and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider 
in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other 
review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do 
not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on 
this document, you may include any comments or information that you 
have regarding the various other review requirements.
    In particular, EPA is interested in any information that would help 
the Agency to assess the potential impact of a rule on small entities 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to 
consider environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to 
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997); or to consider human health or environmental effects on minority 
or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled 
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 
1994).
    The Agency will consider such comments during the development of 
any subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to address 
any applicable requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling, 
Polychlorinated

[[Page 17667]]

biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 31, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-7751 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S